Kuppammal & ORs. vs Deivendran

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and decree rendered in R.C.A.No. 16 of 2004 dated 10.10.2005 by the learned

Rent Controller, Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Tirunelveli reversing the judgment and decree rendered in R.C.O.P.No.97 of

2001 dated 08.10.2003 rendered by Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli.

The respondent in the Civil Revision Petition is the tenant under the revision petitioners. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per the rank mentioned in R.C.O.P.No.97 of 2001.

Originally, the landlords were in need of their property for their own occupation and according to the landlords, though the tenant had agreed for

vacating the property in question, he filed O.S.No. 108 of 2001 against the landlords restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the property in question and therefore, the landlords constrained to file R.C.O.P.No.97 of 2001.

3.1. Per contra, the tenant contended that since the landlords tried to evict the respondent illegally, he filed O.S.No.108 of 2001 against the

landlords, wherein, he obtained an order of interim injunction against the landlords. He further contended that he has been doing grocery business

in the property of the landlords for years together and apart from paying an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the landlords, without any default,

he has been paying rent to the landlords regularly. Further, he contended that the landlords have not impleaded the necessary parties and prayed

for the dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition.

3.2. On hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, has allowed

R.C.O.P.No. 97 of 2001 dated 08.10.2003 filed by the landlords.

3.3. Aggrieved over the afore-said order made in R.C.O.P.No.97 of 2001, dated 08.10.2003, the tenant preferred R.C.A.No.16 of 2004 before

the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Tirunelveli, who in turn, vide his order dated 10.10.2005 reversed the

judgment and decree rendered in R.C.O.P.No.97 of 2001 dated 08.10.2003. Aggrieved over the same, the landlords are before this Court with

the present Civil Revision Petition.

Learned counsel for the landlords submitted that the lower Court after verifying all the records came to the conclusion that the property in

question is required for the genuine purpose, however, the lower appellate Court has failed to consider the said aspect and reversed the judgment

of the lower Court. Hence, they sought for appropriate orders.

Per contra, learned counsel for the tenant would submit that since the requirement of the property is not genuine one, the lower appellate Court

has rightly reversed the order of the lower Court and hence, he prays for sustaining the order of the lower appellate Court.

Considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material available on record.

The point to be considered in this Civil Revision Petition is that whether the order of the lower appellate Court in reversing the order of the

lower Court is in order or not?.

The lower appellate Court framed an issue to the effect that whether the property in question is required for the own use of the landlords and the

said property was claimed by the landlords on the basis of good faith? If the said issue is decided, there will be a quietus to this issue.

8.1. The landlords wanted the property for the purpose of running an office in connection with filing of income tax returns for which the landlord''s

son has produced the documentary evidence before the Court below as regards the qualification and identity card and further, he proved that he is

taking training under a qualified Auditor. The said fact has been clearly recorded by the Court below. However, the lower appellate Court has

recorded the finding that the subject matter of the property is 20 Kms away from the home of the petitioner and therefore, the claim of the

landlord''s son is not genuine as it will not be feasible to have his office.

8.2. This Court is of the considered view that the lower appellate Court has failed to consider that science and technology has made distance

shorter and people are travelling in various modes of transport to do their business. Therefore, the findings arrived at by the Court below warrants

interference at the hands of this Court. Further, according to the landlords, the said property is also required for running a fancy store for which the

landlord''s son contended that he had already worked in Ashath Fancy Store and having enough experience in that field. But, the lower appellate

Court is of the view that the landlords did not have much finance to run the business.

8.3. It is not in dispute that the landlord''s son has already qualified in Cost and Work Accounts coupled with the fact that he had working

experience in the field of fancy stores. According to the landlord''s son, with a small sum of Rs.2,000/-, he will be able to start his business in fancy

items and in my considered view that the landlords are right in saying that Rs.2,000/- is enough for starting the business and materials can be

obtained on credit basis, as the competition of the business is very high in these days. If that is so, the lower appellate Court need not discuss about

the financial aspects of the matter and it is the look out of the landlord''s to arrange for finance to run his business. Therefore, this Court is not able

to understand in what way the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the statement of the landlord''s son that Rs.2000/- is not enough

for starting the business in question. This Court is also not able to understand that under what basis the lower appellate Court has come to the

conclusion that the petitioner did not know about the fancy business when admittedly the landlord''s son stated that he had already worked in

Ashath Fancy Stores for two years. Curiously, the lower appellate Court also found that since the property is adjacent to the riverbed, it may not

be feasible for the landlord''s son to open an office for his own use.

8.4. When the tenant is running his grocery business, it is common knowledge that a large number of people would visit the grocery shop in

question to buy the grocery items and naturally, that place would be suited for running an office or fancy stores too and therefore, the findings of

the lower appellate Court that it did not suit for the office cannot be countenanced in the eye of law.

For the foregoing reasons, the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition stands set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The

tenant is given one month time to vacate the property in question. No costs.