D. THANDAPANI Vs. N.R.P. KANDHASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed in RCA. No. 559 of 2011 by the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The petitioner in this revision is the tenant. The respondent filed a petition in RCOP. No. 1968 of 2009 against the petitioner seeking eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. The respondent has contended that the petition premises was let out at month of Rs. 750/- to carry on oil business. He was planning to purchase a car and so he requested the tenant to vacate the premises by the month of July 2008, for parking his new car in the said premises and the tenant also promised that he will vacate the premises by July 2008.

(2.) The landlord bona fidely believed and trusted the respondent and purchased a new car (Wagon R) in the month of August 2008, but the tenant did not vacate the premises and thereby he was compelled to park the car at a rented parking lot in No. 97 and 98 Avadhanam Pappier Road, Choolai, Chennai and he had paid Rs. 5,000/- as advance and agreed to pay parking charges Rs. 1,000 per month. It is further contended that the schedule mentioned premises is required for parking his vehicle as ingress and regress will be easy.

(3.) The tenant filed his counter resisting the claim of the landlord. The tenant has stated that the landlord demanded enhanced rent of Rs. 1,500/- from the month of August 2008 but the tenant has expressed his inability to pay the said huge hike and offered to pay a sum of Rs. 900/-. Since the landlord refused the same the tenant was forced to sent the same through money order for the month of August and the landlord also received the same. Only thereafter, the landlord issued a notice dated 23.10.2009 for which the tenant has issued a suitable reply dated 05.09.2009 and nearly one year thereafter, the landlord file the eviction petition. The tenant has further stated that the petition premises is not required for parking the petitioner's vehicle and on the eastern side of the petition premises there are two big gates and on the southern side of the rear portion of the stair case leading to the first floor, in between these two places there is enough open space available for parking car. In short the tenant has contended that the petition was filed with an oblique motive to evict the tenant some or other.