The tenant/respondent in the RCOP.No.8 of 2009 is the revision petitioner herein.
2.The RCOP filed under Sections 10(2) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by the landlord was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal and the same was reversed in the appeal RCA.No.2 of 2012 by the appellate authority.
3.Against the reversing judgment, the present revision petition is filed by the tenant on the ground that the appellate authority failed to consider the vital fact that the landlord who is a retired Bank Officer residing at Madurai requires the premises to start business at Ramanathapuram. Admittedly, his son and daughter are well settled and living at Bangalore and Chennai respectively. So, the plea of bonafide requirement of the petition premises at Ramantahapuram is highly improbable. The premises being a non residential building far away from the landlord's residence, the probability of commencing business at Ramanathapuram at the age of 65 when admittedly he has no residential building of his own at Ramanathapuram is near to impossibility. In the absence of material evidence to show the preparedness to commence business, the appellate authority ought not to have allowed the appeal reversing the well considered judgment of the Tribunal.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that the requirement of the premises was made known to the tenant through notice dated 04.10.2008 marked as Exhibit P5. After waiting for nearly six months for the tenant to vacate, the petition for eviction was filed since the tenant stopped paying rent and also refused to vacate the premises. Through Exhibits P1 and P2, the preparedness to start a Departmental Store is well established. Further, Exhibits P3 and P4 Bank Passbook and Fixed Deposit receipts indicate the availability of capital to start business. Since the landlord has established the bonafide requirement through the above said documentary evidence, the appellate Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and reversed the erroneous finding of the Rent Control Tribunal. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
5.Heard the counsels representing the revision petitioner/tenant and the respondent/landlord.
6.The landlord-tenant relationship, rent and receipt of Rs.1,40,000/- as advance are the admitted facts. Though it is pleaded in the petition that the tenant has failed to pay rent for 5 months prior to filing of the petition, in his deposition landlord has admitted receipt of rent and on the date of his testimony, there was no arrears of rent payable by the tenant. Therefore, it is well founded that the allegation of wilful default is disproved. Therefore, the points about the wilful default have not been emphasised in the appeal.
7.As far as bonafide requirement for owner's occupation is concerned, the Tribunal has dismissed the petition on the ground that the OP for eviction is filed after 6 months from the date of issuing notice to vacate. The delay in filing the petition indicates there is no bonafide requirement. Exhibits P1 and P2 are only the desire to start a General Merchant Store. It is not sufficient to infer any tangible or concrete efforts to commence business. The suit building is upon 9, by 12s feet land. The building upon such a small place is not sufficient to establish General Merchant Store. The landlord and his brothers jointly own other commercial building in the town. Therefore, he can commence business in that premises.
8.The appellate authority has on re-appreciation of evidence has reversed the fallacious finding of the Tribunal pointing out the surmises and conjectures upon which the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion. When the revision petitioner could run a watch shop in the petition premises why a General Merchant Store cannot be run in the said building? It is admitted by the tenant that he owns a residential building and also a rented premises in the said town and the landlord has no other building in the town. The building which the tenant alleges to be in the possession and enjoyment proved to be a property in the name of the landlord's mother in which all of her children have right. Furthermore, that building is already in dilapidated condition and unfit for occupation. So, the balance of convenience is only in favour of the landlord.
9.As a landlord to clear the test of bonafide requirement, he has clinchly proved about his financial capacity. His query with suppliers and their letter expressing to supply goods addressing to the respondent cannot be neglected just because the authors of the documents not examined. The letters are addressed to the respondent. Thus he becomes a party to the document. Having prima facie shown his bonafide, it is the burden of the tenant to prove the contrary which he has failed. Further, in this case, the revision petitioner candidly admits in his deposition that he offered to buy the property from the respondent/landlord, but he refused to sell the property to him.
10.The landlord who has financial potentiality and intention to start a business in his own building cannot be held as a person claiming with ulterior motive just because he is about 65 years old or just because he is not a resident of the town in which the petition mentioned property is located. The finding of the Tribunal is based on the above fallacious premise which the appellate authority by its order dated 13.07.2015 has set it right by allowing the appeal.
11.This Court finds no error or perversity in the order of the appellate authority passed in RCA.No.2/2012 reversing the order of the Tribunal in RCOP.No.8/2009.
12.The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the landlord is holding with him Rs.1,40,000/- paid as advance which fact is admitted by the respondent counsel. He also submitted that on the day when the revision petitioner vacates and hand over the vacant possession, the respondent is ready to return the advance of Rs.1,40,000/- received while letting in the revision petitioner as tenant.
13.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed in RCA.No.2/2012 is confirmed. Two months time is granted for the revision petitioner to deliver the vacant possession. On such delivery, the respondent/landlord shall repay Rs.1,40,000/- received from the revision petitioner as advance. No order as to costs.
To
1)The Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ramanathapuram.
2)The District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Ramanathapuram..