M S UMMAR SAHIB Vs. M P STANES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in Rent Control Appeals preferred by landlords against the denial of eviction by the Rent Controller on the grounds of own use and occupation and for demolition and reconstruction as sought in the Rent Control Original Petitions and also on the ground of denial of title in respect of the superstructure, which was not sought for in the petitions. Aggrieved at the order of eviction, as a whole, passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant has filed these revision petitions.

(2.) The respondent in C.R.P. No. 1569 of 2000, who filed R.C.O.P. No. 353 of 1997, is the father of the respondent in C.R.P. No. 1570 of 2000, who filed R.C.O.P. No. 351 of 1997, and both of them claim that they are the owners of the petition non-residential building, which is the subject matter of these revision petitions, in view of the purchase as per Sale Deeds dated 05.3.1997 and 23.4.1997 from S. Rafi Ahmed and his sister Sumaiya Ijaz respectively. In the Rent control Original Petitions, it is stated that the revision petitioner became a tenant in respect of both the petition mentioned non-residential premises under the original owner Syed Abdul Subban and is carrying on business in the name and style of 'Naaz Timber and Sanitary Ware'. Both the properties were settled by Syed Abdul Subban, who is the paternal grandfather of the vendors, viz., S.Rafi Ahmed ad Sumaiya Ijaz, as per registered Settlement Deeds, the xerox copy of which were marked as Exs. A.1 and A.26 respectively dated 12.4.1975. It is the further case of the landlords that after purchase of the properties by the landlords, the revision petitioner / tenant attorned tenancy and paid rent at the rate of Rs. 725/- per month. Jacintha Mary, who is the wife of the respondent in the earlier revision petition and the mother of the respondent in the latter revision petition, is carrying on business under the name and style of 'Richard Corporation' at Mill Road, Coimbatore. The landlord of the said building has filed the eviction petition in R.C.O.P. No. 304 of 1994 and the same is pending. The properties in respect of both the petitions have been purchased only to accommodate the business carried out by Jecintha Mary, being the most suitable place for hardwares, paints and cement items and they are not in occupation of any non-residential building in the Coimbatore City. Therefore, both the premises are required for own use and occupation by the landlords to carry on business by Jacintha Mary, which is carried on from 1974. The buildings mentioned in both the petition premises are old and require demolition. The roof of the buildings is covered by Mangalore Tiles and Asbestos Sheets and they are in broken condition. Both the premises are located in a very important commercial area, where several modern buildings have come up. It is stated that they have taken steps to obtain necessary approved plan from Corporation authority and they have obtained estimation from the Engineer and they have got sufficient funds to demolish and to put up construction in the petition premises. The petitioners undertake to carry out the demolition work within one month and complete the same within three months as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The revision petitioner / tenant has got building of his own adjacent to the Eastern side of the petition mentioned premises. The lawyer's notice dated 27.10.1997 was returned unserved as 'not claimed'. After purchase of the petition mentioned premises, both the respondents / landlords intimated the same to the tenant as per letter dated 25.4.1997 to which the revision petitioner / tenant replied through counsel on 31.5.1997. The landlords sent rejoinder on 07.7.1997. On these grounds, the landlords sought for eviction of the tenant from the petition mentioned premises.

(3.) Both the Rent Control Original Petitions were resisted in the counter filed separately stating that he is a tenant only in respect of the land of the petition mentioned premises for non-residential purposes under the original owner one Syed Abdul Subban, who is the senior paternal grandfather of the vendors, S.Rafi Ahmed and Sumaiya, for starting timber business in 1962. The revision petitioner put up tiled shed and an office room at his expenses for starting timber business in the year 1963 and from 1963, he is doing sanitary business and timber business under the name and style of 'Naaz Timber and Sanitary Ware'. It is stated that the revision petitioner has spent huge amount in putting up structures, sheds, floorings, compound walls, bridge and for repairing. As such, only a vacant land without any super-structure was let out and super-structure has been put up by the revision petitioner. He purchased an extent of 2 cents and 163 Sq.ft. of vacant land, which was the portion of the land leased out by the said Syed Abdul Subban as per registered Sale Deed dated 08.10.1980. The said Syed Abdul Subban settled a portion in favour of Rafi Ahamed and Sumaiya. The revision petitioner attorned tenancy to them and is paying rent to them for vacant land and the present rent payable to the vendors is Rs.725/- per month. Both Rafi Ahamed and Sumaiya received a sum of Rs.5000/- on 25.12.1996 from the revision petitioner / tenant as advance agreeing to sell both the portions, which is the subject matter of these revisions, for Rs.5 lakhs. But, however, they sold the same to the landlords / respondents herein without disclosing the nature of the tenancy of the revision petitioner. The requirement of the petition premises sought by the landlords for own use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on business in the name and style of 'Richard corporation' by Jacintha Mary and the requirement of the petition premises sought for on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is without bona fide.