R JOSEPH Vs. K BALAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the judgment and decree dated 3/9/2009 passed by the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in R.C.A. No.70 of 2007 modifying the fair and decreetal order dated 29/11/2006 passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Controller) in RCOP No.1352 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) PER contra, by way of challenging and refuting, impugning and gainsaying the contentions/arguments as put forth on the side of the tenant, the learned counsel for the landlord would advance his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus: i) The law is settled on the point that unless there is previous written consent from the landlord relating to change of user of the premises by the tenant, the question of pressing into service the implied consent on the part of the landlord by the tenant would not arise at all. Furthermore, in this case, there is no evidence to show that the erstwhile landlord or the present landlord ever gave any implied consent or expressed consent for the change of user of the building. ii) The contention on the side of the tenant that the present landlord who purchased the property is not having locus standi to invoke the ground of change of user for the reason that even his predecessor in title never raised his accusative finger as against the tenant on the ground of change of user, is not tenable. iii) Absolutely, there is no inconsistency in the pleading relating to the ground of owner's occupation. In the RCOP itself it is found spelt out that the landlords are running business in Thoppu Street, Chennai and while adducing evidence also they stuck on to their stand in addition to that they have also stated that they are doing their marketing business in one other place in Pillayar Koil Street and that it does not mean that there is no consistency in the pleading of the landlords relating to the ground of owner's occupation as they are in genuine need of the demised premises and they are doing business in assembling electronic products. iv) Relating to the ground of nuisance, there is ample evidence to show that such conduct of prayer meetings in a residential area and that too in the premises abetting the narrow road, would certainly cause nuisance. The use of loud speaker is certainly a nuisance to the neighbours. At a time 200 to 500 persons are visiting the demised premises for the purpose of attending the prayer meetings and their vehicles are parked in front of the demised premises place and causing nuisance to the entire neighbourhood. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the landlords would pray for dismissing the revision petition.