CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES Vs. S MOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the eviction of the appellant on account of default of payment of rent under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

(2.) The appellant took the disputed shop situated at 71, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Madras on rent in the year 1972 from the erstwhile owner who sold this property to the present respondents in the year 1977. The rent then paid by the appellant was at the rate of Rs. 275/- p.m. Thereafter, it was raised to Rs. 343.75 p.m. from 1-4-1979. Next enhanced to Rs. 500/- p.m. w.e.f. 1-9-1985. In the year 1988 the appellant desired to change his business from spare parts of two-wheelers to sale of tyres, then the rent was again increased to Rs. 750/- p.m. The appellant desired that for selling of tyres he needs to install air-conditioner and compressor with water connection for checking of tubes and fitment of tyres. This also requires additional electricity load, a water tap and a separate lavatory. For doing these, the appellant offered and respondent agreed on condition that the rent be further enhanced from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 1,000/- p.m. On this oral agreement the appellant spent about Rs. 1,00,000/- on renovation. However, the respondent failed to discharge their obligations for providing the aforesaid additional facilities despite repeated requests. On respondents' failure to do so, the appellant filed a suit against him that the landlord was not entitled to claim this enhanced rent of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. In support he stated that on the ground floor there are nine shops including the one with the appellant, similarly situated, but none of these shops have any rental of Rs. 1,000/- p.m.

(3.) Instead of complying with the said conditions, the appellant received respondent's notice dated 9-8-1989 through his Advocate that the agreed rent of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. from 1-4-1989 has not been paid in spite of demands. Before any reply could be sent the appellant was served with a copy of the eviction proceedings dated 27-9-1989 under Section 10(2)(i) of the aforesaid Act. The appellant contested this claim that enhancement agreed to pay Rs. 1,000/- was on a clear understanding that the respondent would provide separate toilet, water connection, additional electricity load etc. In fact, during the pendency of the said petition the counsel for the appellant wrote a letter dated 17-1-1990 to the counsel of the respondent for getting the three-phase electric connection for the shop in question.