BHARATHAN Vs. TAMIL NADU PAINTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment passed in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller II, Pondicherry in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2013.

(2.) The petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is a tenant in respect of non-residential building in ground floor portion measuring 1125sqft, bearing door No.184, Tiruvallur Salai, Puducherry-605013. The tenancy is for non-residential purpose of running the business of Tamil Nadu Paints. The lease agreement was entered into on 1/6/2007 for a period of three years. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.8000.00 per month. After the expiry of three years of lease, the lease was not renewed. Petitioner wanted the premises for own occupation and therefore requested the respondent to vacate the premises. Respondent agreed to vacate the premises and prayed one year time for vacating the premises. He also agreed to pay enhanced rent of Rs.11,000.00per month and that was accepted by the petitioner. Even after the lapse of one year, the respondent has not chosen to vacate the premises. The petitioner has an unemployed son and was about to retire from his job. He reiterated his request for vacating the premises by the respondent. The respondent himself raised the rent to Rs.12,000.00 and that was objected by the petitioner. Petitioner retired from his job as A.E in Puducherry Government in 2008. His son is a Mechanical Engineering graduate and he was unemployed. His son's wife has experience in the education field and she planned to open a creche for children in the premises. It will help the entire family members to survive. However, despite several request respondents has not chosen to vacate the premises and therefore the petition in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2013 was filed under Sec. 10 (3) C of Pondicherry Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1969, for evicting the respondent.

(3.) The respondent filed counter admitting that he is tenant and the petitioner is landlord. It is his submission that he paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000.00. Even after the completion of three years of lease period, the lease was extended and monthly rent was also enhanced. Petitioner is always in the habit of demanding excess rent. When the respondent sent the rent of Rs.11,000.00 through a cheque for June 2012, petitioner acknowledged the rent with an endorsement that "Sir, received a cheque with protest our demand of rent Rs.15,000.00 plus Rs.2,00,000.00 for advance is our request". The intention of the petitioner is to demand higher rent and advance. The claim of the respondent that premises is required for starting a creche for his daughter-in-law is not a genuine and bonafide. There are other shops available in the building and all of them are let out for commercial purposes. It is not possible and practicable to run a creche in a commercial complex. Respondent is running the business of paint merchant having sizeable customers in and around the area. If he is asked to vacate the premises it would lead to irreparable loss to him.