SUNIL Vs. EXPRESS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P.No.2262/2006, on the file of the Court of XIV Judge of Small Causes (Rent Controller) at Chennai and the said eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord seeking demolition of the shop in the occupation of the tenant in the ground floor of the premises bearing No.78/829, Anna Salai (Mount Road), Chennai 2, admeasuring about 200 sq. ft. and for reconstruction, came to be ordered after contest, vide fair and decreetal order dated 20.11.2007, and aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.58/2008, on the file of the Court of VIII Judge of Small Causes (Rent Control Appellate Authority) at Chennai, and the said appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2009, and challenging the concurrent findings, rendered by the Rent Controller as well as by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present revision is filed by the tenant.

(2.) A perusal of the materials available on record in the form of typed-set of documents, would disclose that the respondent/landlord had purchased the entire premises, which also consist of a shop leased out to the revision petitioner/tenant by means of a registered sale deed dated 28.6.2006, and the revision petitioner/tenant attorned the tenancy in favour of the respondent/landlord after their purchase. The revision petitioner/tenant came into possession of the petition premises for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.1,700/- and according to the respondent/landlord, the entire building had become very old and is in a dilapidated and dangerous condition as it was constructed about 100 years back by using brick and mortar, and the walls and flooring of the premises had also completely worn out. The respondent/landlord further contended that the premises is situated in the heart of the City of Chennai at Anna Salai (Mount Road) and the Corporation of Chennai had also issued a notice for demolition and after demolition and reconstruction, the premises is going to be used as an Information Technology Park and in this regard, the landlord sent a lawyer's notice dated 12.12.2006, calling upon the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession, and though it was acknowledged, the revision petitioner/tenant has failed to vacate the premises.

(3.) The revision petitioner/tenant has filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition filed for eviction, and further contended that the respondent/landlord is not a registered firm under the Partnership Act, and it is only the firm that can prosecute the proceedings and the mandatory provisions of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, have not been complied with. The tenant further contended that the remedy open to the landlord, if any, is to file a petition for fixation of fair rent and accordingly, he also filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.52/2007 and therefore, it is very clear that the intention of the landlord was not to evict the revision petitioner/tenant. The tenant also denied the age and condition of the building and also the capacity of the landlord to demolish and put up a new construction and further contended that the requirement is not at all bonafide.