S. Selvarajan vs A.K. Sakthivel and another

The civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate. Authority, Srivilliputhur, in R.C.A.No.40 of 1991 on his

file confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Sattur, in R.C.O.P.No.21 of 1990.

The revision petitioner''s eviction was sought on the ground of owner''s occupation.

The case as set out in the eviction petition was as follows:

The revision petitioner and the second respondent herein were the tenants in respect of the property belonging to the first respondent for non-

residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.300. The tenants agreed to vacate the premises and the tenancy got over in 1985. The first

respondent/landlord required the building for his own use for the purpose of locating his business. He had been conducting the business under the

name and style of ''Sakthirani Traders'' in Door No.112, ICA Colony, Virudhunagar. It was a rented premises belonging to one Tmt.Mythili and

the landlady having called upon the first respondent to vacate the premises, the eviction petition had to be filed.

The second respondent remained ex parte and the revision petitioner along contested the case on the following lines:

The tenancy commenced even prior to the purchase of the property by the first respondent in 1978. The tenant never agreed to vacate the

premises in 1985. The first respondent was not running his own business in a rented premises as claimed by him nor did the landlady require the

first respondent to vacate the premises. The requirement was not bona fide.

The first respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-33. The revision petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 and examined

one Janarthanam as R.W.2 and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 29.8.1991 found that the first

respondent landlord had made out a case for eviction on the ground of owner''s occupation and ordered eviction. This order of eviction was

confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 14.2.1996. As against the order of the Appellate Authority the present civil revision petition has been

filed.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the authorities below have not properly appreciated the various documents

and the oral evidence. The requirement of the first respondent is not bona fide and that the claim that he is running his business in a rented premises

is only a make-believe affair and the documents have been created for the purpose of this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the first

respondent claiming as he did, was doing business in blackgram, coriander, orid, green gram, PVC pipes and accessories, paddy, rice, etc., did

not produce any licence under the Essential Commodities Act, nor did he produce any State Control Orders. According to the learned counsel,

the very documents relied on by the first respondent landlord would show that he had no intention of doing any business in the petition mentioned

property. The learned counsel also relied on the oral evidence of the first respondent as P.W.1 and also the oral evidence of R.W.2 who is the

Commercial Tax Officer. The learned counsel further submitted that in the notice issued on behalf of the first respondent, it was not mentioned that

the first respondent required the premises for carrying on his own business. The notice actually stated that the premises were required for the

business purpose of the first respondent''s son who was studying Chartered Accountancy.

I heard counsel, perused the relevant orders. There is overwhelming documentary evidence to show that the first respondent really intended to

carry on business in the property. As early as 11.2.1989 the first respondent wrote a letter to the revision petitioner under Ex.A-2 calling upon him

to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property as it was required for his own use and occupation. Ex.A-5 is the receipt issued by the

Telephone Department in favour of the first respondent and Ex.A-6 is the demand notice issued by the same department. Ex.A-11 is the true copy

of the telegram given by the first respondent to the revision petitioner to vacate the premises on 13.8.1989. This was followed by a lawyer notice

under Ex.A-12. Ex.A-21 is the certificate of registration under the Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The premises mentioned in Ex.A-21 is 112, ICA

Colony, Virudhunagar, belonging to one Mythili. It is also stated in Ex.A-21 that the first respondent is dealing in black gram, coriander, toor, orid,

green gram, palmyrah sandy, PVC pipes and accessories, GI pipes and fittings, paddy, rice, etc. Ex.A-26 is the summons received from the

Assistant Commercial Tax Officer-II, Virudhunagar, addressed to the first respondent at 112, ICA Colony, Virudhunagar. Ex.A-27 is the

assessment order in respect of Sakthi Rani Traders belonging to the first respondent for the year 1989-90 and the address given is 112, ICA

Colony, Virudhunagar. The landlady has written a letter to the first respondent on 5.3.1990 calling upon him to vacate the premises as he was

using the residential premises for non-residential purposes. This was Ex.A-31 and Ex.A-32 to the reply sent by the first respondent, Ex.A-24, is

the cash book maintained by the first respondent for the business, viz. Sakthi Rani Traders, Ex.A-25 is the ledger maintained by the concern.

Ex.A-28 is the cash book for the year 1990-91. Ex.A-29 is the ledger pertaining to Ex.A-28. These exhibits clearly show that the first respondent

was carrying on business in a rented premises. It is also evident from the various documents that he was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act

and the State Commercial Tax Act. The revision petitioner also had not denied that the first respondent was carrying on business in a residential

property and the landlady had taken the rise of action under the Rent Control Act for having allowed the first respondent to run his business in

residential premises. R.W.2 had also deposed that the department officials inspected the premises maintained by the first respondent at No.112,

ICA Colony, Virudhunagar. Thus the various documents and the oral evidence clearly established that the first respondent was carrying on

business in a rented premises at Door No.112, ICA Colony Virudhunagar. The bona fide of the first respondent as rightly held by the authorities

below had been clearly established. May be the first respondent originally said through notice that he required the premises for the use of his son.

But, it does not mean that he could not change his requirement as for his own occupation for non-residential purposes. The materials on record

clearly show that the first respondent had made out a case for own occupation. The conclusion reached by the authorities below cannot be taken

exception to. There are no merits in the civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Mr. Damodaran, teamed counsel for the revision petitioner seeks time to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the respondents has no

objection to grant six months time, subject to the revision petitioner filling an affidavit of undertaking. Accordingly, subject to the revision petitioner

filing an affidavit of undertaking with the usual default clause within a period of two weeks from today, the revision petitioner will have time till

31.5.2000 to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property to the landlord.