IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 24-11-2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ C.R.P.NPD.Nos.3256 & 3648 OF 2013 C.R.P.NPD.No.3256 of 2013 is filed against the order, dated 09.07.2013, passed in R.C.A.No.566 of 2005 on the file of VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
C.R.P.NPD.No.3648 of 2013 is filed against the order, dated 09.07.2013, passed in R.C.A.No.507 of 2005 on the file of VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For petitioners : Mr.V.Ayyadurai, Senior Advocate, for Mr.J.Abdul Hadi. For respondent : Mr.A.J.Abdul Razak O R D E R These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders of eviction, by the unsuccessful tenants.
2. Eviction petitions were filed under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in short, "the Act", by the landlord, for owner's occupation.
3. Admittedly, the building is non-residential. The respondent/landlord was carrying on business on the date of filing of the petitions. He was not occupying any other non-residential building of his own. The petitioners/tenants filed a counter, stating that the claim of the respondent/landlord was not bona fide and that he and his family members own non-residential property in the city of Chennai.
4. On the side of the respondent/landlord, seven documents were marked.
On the side of the petitioners/tenants, no document was marked. Even though the petitioners/tenants have stated that the landlord is in possession of other non-residential building in the city of Chennai, no documentary evidence has been produced for the same. Even in the oral evidence, they have categorically stated that they are not aware of the existence of any other building of the owner.
5. Both the Courts below have held that the tenants have not established that the landlord is having another building of his own to carry on business, and that the claim of the landlord is bona fide.
6. Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners/tenants, would submit that both the Courts below have grossly erred in not considering the relative hardship caused to the tenants and this being the question of law, the same should be considered in this revision. It is also his contention that the hardship, which is caused to the tenants by eviction, will outweigh the hardship caused to the landlord.
7. The petitions filed are for eviction, on the ground of owner's occupation.
The requirement for owner's occupation is mainly based on bona fides. The petitioners/tenants have let in evidence, stating that there are vacant portions in the first floor of the building and therefore the claim of the landlord is not genuine. On the other hand, the evidence of the respondent/landlord shows that the portion in the first floor cannot be used for iron-pipe business.
8. The question of relative hardship arises only in the cases of additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (c) and the relative inconvenience can be taken into consideration when the other portion of the premises, which is suitable for the business, is not occupied by the landlord. In this case, the landlord has clearly proved that he has no other non-residential building of his own for carrying on business.
9. Since both the Courts below have categorically held that the ingredients of Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act have been clearly proved by the respondent/landlord and the relative hardship caused to the tenants is not established by them, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings. The Rent Controller has granted time of two months for eviction of the petition premises. However, this Court grants three months' time for the same.
10. Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 of 2013 are closed.
Index : Yes/No 24-11-2017 Internet : Yes/No dixit To VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
M.GOVINDARAJ,J.
dixit C.R.P.NPD.Nos.3256 & 3648/ 2013 24-11-2017