Both the revision petitioner and the respondent are present. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2.It is the case of the landlord that the petition schedule premises is required for petitioner's son's own business. According to the revision petitioner, her son has passed the Trade Examination conducted by Director of Employment and training in July 2002 and has experienced knowledge in the electronic goods business and also is doing service and repair work in Electronic work in his residencne as well as in his customers place and since he could not secure a better accommodation to run his business, the petitioner requires the petition premisies for her son's business. In the counter, the respondent/revision petitioner would state that he is conducting hardware business from 1998 in the petition schedule premises and without committing any default in payment of rent, he was paying the rent to the landlady. According to the respondent/revision petitioner herein, the petitioner is having two other shops. Before the learned Rent Controller, on the side of the petitioner/landlady, P.W1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the respondent/tenant , R.W.1 was examined and no exhibits were marked. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller has allowed the petition holding that the landlady requires the petition schedule premises bonafidely undner Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings( Lease and Rent Control)Act .
3.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant had preferred an appeal in RCA.No.1020 of 2006 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, who, finding no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.2305 of 2005 which necessitated the tenant to approach this Court with this revision.
4. The only point urged before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that even according to the landlady, the petition schedule premises was put up only in the year 2003 and hence under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings( Lease and Rent Control) Act, the R.C.O.P. itself is not maintainable. But the fact remains that the tenancy between the landlady and the tenant commenced in the year 1998 itself and due to heavy rain in the year 2003, the rain water entered into the petition schedule premises which made the landlady to renovate the building and also enhanced the rent from Rs.2500/- to Rs 6500/-. Further there is no material placed before the trial Court to show that there was a new rental agreement entered into between the landlady and the tenant in the year 2003. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings( Lease and Rent Control) Act will not be applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
5. At the fag end of his argument, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would pray for one year time to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the landlady but the respondent/landlady is willing to give six months time.
6. In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed. The tenant is given six months time from today to vacate and hand over the vacant possessioon of the petition schedule premises to the landlady. It is further admitted by the landlady that the tenant had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards advance and undertakes to repay the said advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the tenant on the date the tenant vacates the premises. The affidavit of undertaking to be filed within a week. No costs. Connected M.P. No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.
sg To the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Chennai