RAMESH SALUNKHE Vs. PRAMILA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in R.L.T.A.No.5 of 2021 confirming the order of the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.L.T.O.P.No.3 of 2019.

(2.) The respondent as a petitioner filed an application under Sec. 21 (2) (a) and Sec. 21 (2) (g) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 for the relief of evicting the petitioner from the schedule property and claiming a compensation of Rs.3000.00 per month from 1/6/2019 till the termination of the tenancy under Sec. 23 of the said Act.

(3.) The averments made in the application, in brief, are as follows: The respondent/applicant purchased the petition premises along with the entire building in auction sale conducted by Purasaiwakkam Benefit Fund Limited in 2002 and became absolute owner of the land and building at premises bearing door No.134, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai. Applicant wrote a letter to the respondent to attorn the tenancy in her favour. Respondent attorned the tenancy and was paying the monthly rent of Rs.1500.00 regularly. The erstwhile landlord filed C.S.No.160 of 2005 before this Court to declare auction sale as null and void. Respondent and other tenants were parties to the suit. Respondent has not raised any claim regarding the advance amount said to have been paid to erstwhile landlord Babu Narashimma Rao. This Court in application No.1070 of 2005 directed all the tenants including the respondent to pay the monthly rent and arrears to the applicant. C.S.No.160 of 2005 was dismissed and O.S.A.No.217 of 2018 filed by Babu Narashimma Rao is pending. Respondent has been regularly paying rent from 2002 onwards. There exist relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent/applicant and petitioner/respondent. Applicant is carrying on business as a dealer in diamond, gold, silver, precious stones and artificial works. She wants to renovate the entire building by giving facelift consistent with the business requirements to attract customers. She wants to construct a strong room, modern lift facilities in the premises. She is carrying on business in several places in city and wants to shift the entire business to one place. The purpose of purchasing the property is locating entire business in this premises. Applicant genuinely requires the premises for her own use. There is no rental agreement entered into between the respondent/applicant and petitioner/respondent. Petitioner/respondent has not paid any rental advance or security to the applicant. Applicant has written a letter to the respondent enclosing a rental agreement for perusal and that was received by the respondent. Respondent has written a letter dtd. 27/4/2019 stating he paid Rs.3,75,000.00 as rental advance to the erstwhile landlord Babu Narashimmia Rao. Applicant replied to the letter on 30/4/2019 denying the contents. Respondent again wrote a letter dtd. 3/5/2019, but he has not come forward to enter into a written agreement with the applicant, which is mandatory under Sec. 4 (2) of the Act 2017 and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. Applicant issued a legal notice dtd. 8/5/2019 stating that the premises occupied by the respondent is required for her business purpose and terminated the respondent's tenancy ending with 31/5/2019. Respondent was called upon to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the portion of the building on or before 1/6/2019. Respondent replied the legal notice with false, frivolous, vexatious, unacceptable and untenable contentions. A suitable rejoinder was sent. Respondent issued a sur-rejoinder. Respondent failed and neglected to vacate the premises. Therefore, this application.