AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenge is made to a judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely the VIII Judge, Court of Small
Causes, Madras, in RCA No. 71 of 2005 which arose from the order of eviction passed in RCOP No. 426 of 2003 by the Rent Controller,
namely the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.
The original landlord namely the husband of the first respondent herein, filed two petitions in RCOP Nos. 425 and 426 of 2003 for eviction on
the ground of additional accommodation stating that the premises bearing Old No. 23, New No. 107, Sundaram Pillai Nagar, Vaidyanatha Mudali
Street, Ennore High Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai, belonged to him; that the respondents in the RCOPs were the tenants under him; that in the rear
portion the family of the landlord is living; that his wife started a School under the name and style of Angels Baby Land in the first floor; that in the
front portion, number of shops are situated; that six tenants are occupying the same; that out of six, two are the respondents in the main RCOPs;
that originally, the said School had LKG, UKG, 1st 2nd and 3rd Standards; that thereafter, recognition was granted for Standards I to X; that
every academic year, the strength has become increasing; that even for the purpose of keeping the library books and also for running the School,
they do not have sufficient accommodation; that what is available with them in the first floor is insufficient, and hence, they decided to vacate all the
tenants; that accordingly, it was informed to them; but, they were not amenable, and under the circumstance, it became necessary to file the said
petitions.
In both the petitions, the tenants took a common stand that the wife of the landlord is the Correspondent of the School; that the School was
being run by a Trust; that the provision of law could be available to a landlord to seek eviction on the ground of additional accommodation for any
one of the members of his family, but not so in the instant case, and under the circumstances, the petitions were not maintainable.
Both the petitions were taken up for enquiry by the Rent Controller, and they were decided in favour of the landlord, and eviction was ordered.
Not satisfied with the same, both the tenants took it on appeals in RCA Nos. 1212 of 2004 and 71 of 2005 respectively as stated above. Both the
appeals were taken up for enquiry. The appellate authority also took the view that additional accommodation asked for by the wife of the landlord,
was genuine, and the contentions put forth by the appellants/tenants were to be rejected and accordingly, rejected and affirmed the order of the
Rent Controller. Out of these two tenants, the respondent in RCOP No. 426 of 2003 has brought forth this revision challenging the judgment in
RCA No. 71 of 2005.
It is pertinent to point out that the respondent in the other RCOP No. 425 of 2003 has brought forth a revision in CRP No. 1862 of 2007. This
Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the revision on 10.7.2007, granting 9 months'' time to the tenant.
The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that in the instant case, the School is, admittedly, being run by a Trust;
that according to the original landlord, he requires the premises for additional accommodation for running the School; that the landlord has nothing
to do with the School, since it is being run by a Trust; that the wife of the landlord is only the Correspondent and also the Principal; that she is
being paid by the Trust; that under the circumstances, the Trust is actually the tenant under the landlord who is the original petitioner before the
Rent Controller; that in the instant case, Section 10(3)(c) of the Act cannot be applied since additional accommodation could be asked for only for
any one of the members of the landlord''s family and not for any other purposes; that in the instant case, once there is a clear proof that the School
belonged to a Trust, and the landlord''s wife is actually the Correspondent cum Principal, the said provision of law could not be applied; that in
such circumstances, the RCOP itself was not maintainable and should have been rejected by the authorities below, but not done so, and hence, the
orders of the authorities below have got to be set aside.
The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondents on the above contentions.
Now, it is brought to the notice of the Court that pending the RCA, P.W.1, the landlord, died, and actually the property devolved upon P.W.2
namely his wife, and her daughter, and they have been added as parties, and they are the respondents herein.
After careful consideration of the rival submissions made and looking into the materials available, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
orders of the authorities below do not require any interference in the hands of this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner before this Court has been the
tenant under the original landlord in the past and running the shop by making monthly payment of rental. Now, the case of the landlord was that the
wife is running a School; that in that School, originally, they had the recognition for LKG, UKG and I to III Standards; that now, it has come to the
level of X Standard; that apart from that, the strength has been increasing year by year; that the space in the first floor where the School is being
run all along, is not sufficient to have a library and also to run the School; that under the circumstances, the petitioner herein was to be evicted for
additional accommodation to run the School, and hence, it was required, and he sought eviction on that ground. What was all stated by the revision
petitioner/tenant before the authorities below and equally here also is that the School is being run by a Trust; that the landlord''s wife is only the
Correspondent cum Principal; that she is a paid servant, and thus, the Trust itself is the tenant under the landlord; that the provision of law could be
given force in a given situation where additional accommodation is asked for only for any one of the members of the family of the landlord and not
otherwise; and that in the instant case, the said provision of law cannot be applied. The contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the
revision petitioner have been rightly rejected by both the authorities below. In the instant case, the landlord was examined as P.W.1, and his wife
was examined as P.W.2. From the documentary evidence that was available and in particular Ex.P2, it would be abundantly clear that a Trust
called Angels Baby Land Educational Trust, was created by the wife of the landlord, and she was the sole trustee. Thus, it would be quite evident
that she is the Correspondent. It is also an admitted fact that she is the Correspondent of the present School. It is also quite evident that the Trust is
having only one trustee; that the sole trustee is the wife of the landlord; that she is running the School, and that School is actually called Angels
Baby Land Matriculation School of which she is the Correspondent. Under the circumstances, the contention that there is a trust, which is
independent, and that Trust is running the School, and the lady has nothing to do with the Trust, and further the Trust itself is the tenant under the
landlord, though attractive at the first instance to be heard, cannot stand the scrutiny since all the documentary evidence which were produced
before the Rent Controller and marshaled and considered by the authorities below as narrated in the orders, would make it evident that the
landlord''s wife is actually the sole trustee of the Trust, and she is also the Correspondent of the School, and she is running the School. In the
instant case, additional accommodation asked for was thoroughly justified by the documentary evidence adduced. Thus, the orders of the
authorities below have got to be sustained, and accordingly, they are sustained.
However, taking into consideration the fact that the tenant is running his business in the premises, this Court is of the view that reasonable time
has got to be granted. Accordingly, nine months'' time is granted for vacating and handing over possession to the landlord. An affidavit of
undertaking should be filed within a period of two weeks herefrom.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.