C ANDIAPPAN Vs. PREMIER ENGINE STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 27.7.1998 and made in R.C.A.No.5 of 1997 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Erode reversing the order and decretal order of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Erode dated 17.1.1997 in R.C.O.P.No.36 of 1990.

(2.) Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:- The revision petitioner, who is the petitioner before the Rent Control Court, is the landlord of the premises described in the Rent Control Original Petition, by virtue of the purchase made under a registered sale deed dated 26.3.1990 for proper and valuable consideration of Rs.1,83,000/- from one M. Arthanari and his son A. Rathinasabapathi residing at Door No.132A, Perundurai Road, Erode. The revision petitioner is carrying on business in stainless steel utensils under the name and style of "Anguvilas Metal Stores" in a rented building at Door No.6, Agraharam Street, Erode. The revision petitioner finds it inconvenient to continue his business in the rented building for want of sufficient space and therefore, the demised premises, which is situate in the main bazaar and which is better suited for the business of the revision petitioner, was purchased on 26.3.1990. The revision petitioner has proposed to demolish and reconstruct the demised premises as a multi-storied building to augment the income of the revision petitioner by letting out a portion after occupying sufficient portion to carry on his stainless steel utensils business. The revision petitioner has also applied and obtained necessary sanction from Erode Municipality for construction of multi-storied building. The revision petitioner is having sufficient means to demolish and reconstruct the said building. The requirement for own use and occupation and for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. The revision petitioner undertakes to commence the demolition work of the existing building not later than one month from the date of recovery of possession of the entire building and shall complete the demolition work before expiry of three months. The respondents, who are in occupation of the demised premises have committed wilful default in payment of rent for seven months from the date of purchase of the demised premises by the revision petitioner. Therefore, the revision petitioner has come forward with a petition for eviction on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent, own use and occupation and demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) The respondents herein, as respondents before the Rent Control Court, resisted the claim made by the revision petitioner on the following grounds:- The demised property, which situate in Nethaji Road, Erode town, was taken on lease from its owner, Arthanari on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- inclusive of Rs.500/- towards amenities, in the year 1980. One Rathinasabapathi is an undivided son of Arthanari and they constituted a joint Hindu family. On 23.4.1990, the revision petitioner issued a notice to the said Arthanari and Rathinasabathi with a copy to the respondents stating about the purchase of the demised property from the said Arthanari and his son Rathinasabapathi for a consideration of Rs.1,83,000/-. Shortly thereafter, the said Arthanari and his son Rathinasabapathi sent a notice through their counsel stating that they sold the demised property to the revision petitioner for a consideration of Rs.4,08,000/-, though it was recited in the sale deed as Rs.1,83,000/-, that the revision petitioner had retained a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- for being paid at the time of delivery of actual possession of the demised property to him and that therefore, the sale deed was incomplete. It is on these grounds, the said Arthanari and his son Rathinasabapathi with whom the respondents herein had entered into a lease agreement, had informed the respondents not to pay rent or to surrender possession of the demised property to the revision petitioner. The respondents have paid Rs.12,000/- towards 12 months rent for the period from 1.3.1990 to 28.2.1991 to the said Arthanari and his son as early as 1.3.1990. As there was a dispute between the revision petitioner and his vendors, the respondents have filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.21 of 1991 to deposit the rent in Court. Therefore, the respondents are not in arrears of rent for a period of seven months on the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition and the respondents have not committed wilful default in payment of rent. The premises bearing Door No.6, Agraharam Street, in which the revision petitioner is carrying on business in stainless steel utensils, is situate in main bazaar at Erode, while the demised premises is situate in Nethaji street, which is at a distance of one furlong from the main bazaar and therefore, the demised premises is not suitable to carry on business by the revision petitioner. The building in the demised premises was put up in the year 1980 and is in good condition. There is no necessity to demolish the said building and to reconstruct the same. Therefore, the requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction or for own use and occupation is not bona fide. It is on these grounds, the respondents have sought for dismissal of the petition.