Anu Jeevan Sales Corporation vs P.M. Nambiraj

N. Kirubakaran, J.—C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2882 has been filed by the tenants challenging the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court on the ground of additional accommodation.

The petitioners in the above said CRP are tenants under the respondent in respect of a non-residential portion in the Ground Floor of the premises bearing No. 250 (Old No. 111), Strahans Road, Otteri, Chennai-12. The respondent/landlord is carrying on his business of running a Kalyana Mandapam in the Ground Floor, First Floor and two rooms in the Second Floor and having his office underneath the staircase in the Ground Floor. Since, for effective running of the Kalyana Mandapam, the respondent/landlord needed the portion rented out, he filed R.C.O.P. No. 1960 of 2007 for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation as against the proprietary concern, M/s. Anu Jeevan Sales Corporation represented by its Proprietor Mr. B. Ellappa Mudaliar. The said R.C.O.P. was contested by the said Ellappa Mudaliar stating that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent herein; that tenancy is in the name of one E. Kumar, who is the 3rd petitioner in the above said C.R.P. and that he is doing the business in the petition premises. However, the Trial Court, rejected the said contention and found that there is, in fact, landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and the 3rd petitioner''s father, namely, Ellappa Mudaliar.

As far as additional accommodation is concerned, the Trial Court, taking into account, the respondent is running a Kalyana Mandapam in the Ground Floor, First Floor and two rooms in the Second Floor and having his office underneath the staircase in the Ground Floor and further, based on oral and documentary evidence adduced, factually, arrived at the conclusion that for effective running of the Kalyana Mandapam, the portion under the occupation of the tenant is bona fidely required. For coming to that conclusion, the Trial Court, relied upon Exs.-P20 to P24. Those documents proved that the Kalyana Mandapam is being run in the said premises and the said business is assessed to tax. Moreover, it was also proved that by ordering eviction, the hardship caused to the tenant will not over weigh the advantage that would accrue to the respondent/landlord and therefore, on the question of relative hardship as well, the Trial Court concluded in favour of the respondent/landlord.

As far as the question of landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and the 3rd petitioner''s father is concerned, the Trial Court relied upon Ex-P19, which is a communication from the Commercial Tax Department stating that the said proceedings is carried on by Ellappa Mudaliar. The Trial Court also found that the registered address of M/s. Anu Jeevan Sales Corporation is the petition premises; that the said concern is carrying on business in the said premises and that the rent is paid by Ellappa Mudaliar, the proprietor of the said concern. Based on documentary evidence, the Trial Court found that landlord-tenant relationship exists between the respondent herein and Ellappa Mudaliar. The finding rendered by the Trial Court, with regard to landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and Ellappa Mudaliar and additional accommodation, is based on evidence, especially, based on documents and therefore, the eviction order passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court cannot be interfered with. There is no illegality or perversity in the order of eviction passed by the Courts below. Hence, C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2882 of 2013 is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2882 of 2013, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Courts below, C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2883 of 2013, filed by one E. Kumar, son of Ellappa Mudaliar, challenging the dismissal of R.C.O.P. No. 719 of 2008 filed by him, seeking permission to deposit monthly rent from October, 2007 to February 2008, in respect of the very same premises, claiming himself to be the tenant under the respondent/landlord and also the future rent, by order dated 26.11.2010, and confirmed by the Appellate Court, also stands dismissed, as this Court already found that Ellappa Mudaliar is the tenant of the petition premises.

As far as C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3071 of 2013 is concerned, the same is filed challenging the order dated 01.03.2013 in M.P. No. 750 of 2011 in R.C.A. No. 832 of 2010 passed by the Appellate Court, closing the said application for adducing additional evidence. The petitioners had filed the above M.P. for adducing additional evidence while challenging the order of eviction in R.C.A. No. 832 of 2010 and the said application was closed taking note of the dismissal of the main appeal. When the main appeal itself has been decided against the petitioners, the closing of the application for adducing additional evidence cannot be found fault with. Hence, C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3071 of 2013 is also dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants seeks one and a half year''s time to vacate and hand over the premises in question.

However, taking note of the fact that the R.C.O.P. was filed in the year 2007 and more than 7 years have elapsed since then, it is not appropriate to grant such a long time. Therefore, this Court finds it fit to grant nine months'' time i.e., on or before 28th February, 2015, to the petitioners/tenants to vacate and hand over the premises under their occupation to the respondent/landlord. The petitioners/tenants shall file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect by 16.06.2014. Call the matters on 17.06.2014. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.