K.SHABIR Vs. POONA ENGINEERING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondent. The appeal in RLTA No.56 of 2022 was preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dtd. 29/3/2022 passed by the Learned XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RLTOP No.96/2021 filed by the respondent, seeking an order of eviction and a direction that the petitioner / tenant to pay compensation for use and occupation of the shop premises at Rs.9,394.00 per month from 1/1/2021 till the termination of proceedings.

(2.) It was stated in RLTOP that, the petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondent in respect of shop portion in the ground floor of premises, on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000.00 excluding electricity charges. The petitioner had filed RCOP No.97 of 2003 to deposit the monthly rent and the same was allowed on 20/8/2003. The petitioner had filed RCOP.No.1364 of 2003 for fixation of fair rent and the same was allowed and the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai, had fixed a sum of Rs.4,697.00 as monthly rent and the petitioner depositing the same to the credit of RCOP.No.97 of 2003 on the file of XII Small Causes Court. There is no written agreement between the parties after the commencement of the TNRRRLT Act and the petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground under Sec.21(2)(a) and also under Sec.21(2)(c) of the TNRRRLT Act. The respondent had made several requests to vacate the premises, but the petitioner had not vacated the premises and failed to enter into any written rental agreement arrived at between both parties. Hence, the respondent issued a legal notice dtd. 10/12/2020 to the petitioner and thereafter, terminated the tenancy of the petitioner with expiry of 31/12/2020 as per notice dtd. 10/12/2020. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay double the rate of rent at Rs.9,394.00 from 1/1/2021 as per Sec. 23 of the said TNRRRLT Act.

(3.) The petitioner / tenant resisted the eviction petition and filed a counter affidavit stating that he is a tenant under the respondent and it is false to state that the monthly rent is Rs.5,000.00. Despite paying the rent, the respondent in the year 2013 tried to forcefully evict the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.1310 of 2014 for permanent injunction and the same was decreed on 6/4/2015. The petitioner had filed RCOP No.680 of 2017 and the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 30/1/2019. On 22/6/2019, the respondent herein sent a letter calling upon the petitioner to come and sign the agreement at his office as per Sec. 4 of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017 which is arbitrary as the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the same. On 4/7/2019, the petitioner had replied requesting the respondent to furnish a copy of the tenancy agreement being a legitimate right for a tenant to know the contents of the agreement. The respondent did not provide the same to the petitioner. Hence, the result of non-registration of the agreement is due to the conduct of the respondent. The respondent had issued a termination notice dtd. 10/12/2020 for which the petitioner had given suitable reply vide reply notice dtd. 13/12/2020. The respondent himself has admitted that the petitioner is in occupation of the premises. Therefore, the petition under Sec. 21(2)(c) of the Act is not maintainable. The respondent owns more than 16 properties in and around the premises and the need of the premises for own use and occupation is not true and the same is created for evicting the petitioner. The respondent had already filed RCOP.No.1073 of 2023 and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, the respondent cannot maintain the petition under Sec. 21(2)(g) of the Act.