M S MOHAMMED ARIF Vs. M DEVADOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition has been filed, challenging an Order, dated 20.11.2012, passed by the learned VIII Judge (Appellate Authority) Small Causes Court, Chennai, directing the Registry to number the Rent Control Appeal filed by the Tenant. The Respondent/Tenant is a practising lawyer and submissions have been advanced by him. Earlier, the Revision Petitioner-Landlord has filed RCOP. No. 821 of 2010, contending inter alia that the entire premises, old Door No. 58 and New Door No. 18, Salai Vinayagar Koil Street, Chennai, is owned jointly by himself and his son. The premises was managed by him. The Respondent/Tenant was originally inducted in the 2nd Floor of the above premises, under an Agreement, dated 10.6.1999, by one Mrs. Kasiammal, who was the then owner of the entire premises. From the said Mrs. Kasiammal, the entire property was purchased by the Petitioner and his son, under a Deed of Sale, dated 27.6.2001. Even after the change of ownership of the property, the Respondent continued to occupy the said portion, as Tenant. On 1.1.2006, a new Agreement of Tenancy has been made between the Petitioner and the Respondent, wherein, the Tenant had agreed to pay rent, at the rate of Rs. 3,200/- per month, since 1.1.2006. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was left with the Petitioner as security. In order to provide accommodation to his son, the Revision Petitioner/Landlord demanded the Tenant to vacate the premises. At this juncture, the Respondent-Tenant sent a Notice, dated 13.6.2009, alleging that the Landlord had refused to receive the rent. The Tenant called upon the Landlord/Petitioner to specify a Bank situated in the City of Chennai, so as to enable him to deposit the rent into the Bank. Thereafter, the Tenant came forward to pay the rent, ending with 30.6.2009. Subsequently, on 20.3.2010, the Landlord caused a notice to the Tenant to vacate the premises. Though the said notice was acknowledged by the Respondent on 22.3.2010, but there was no reply. Therefore, for bona fide occupation of the Petitioner's son, the Landlord has filed a Rent Control proceedings. In his Petition, there was also a pleading that the Landlord did not possess any other building of his own in City of Chennai. The Tenant did not file any Counter Affidavit. The learned Rent Controller has framed following point for consideration:

(2.) On either side, one witness was examined and no document was marked. The evidence adduced by the parties, before the Rent Controller, is reproduced:

(3.) On the basis of the candid admission made by the Tenant, agreeing to the bona fide requirement of the Landlord, the Rent Controller has passed the following orders: