PRABHAKARAN Vs. ARSHLEEN ANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Civil revision petition preferred under Sec. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the judgment and decree dated 23. 3. 2007 made in RCA No. 1384 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 28. 9. 2004 made in RCOP No. 787 of 2003 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. ) This revision has arisen from an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No. 1384 of 2004 affirming an order of eviction in RCOP No. 787/2003 by the Rent Controller.

(2.) THE respondent-landlady filed the RCOP with the specific averments that the petition mentioned premises in Door No. 834/6, Raheja Complex, Anna Salai, Chennai, belonged to her; that the revision petitioner-tenant has been making a payment of Rs. 4,100/- per month; that her husband is carrying on a business in the name of Singh Trading Company in a rented premises; that he is also a partner therein; that the said partnership firm suffered an order of eviction in CRP No. 82/2002 dated 26. 4. 2002 of this Court; that under the circumstances, the said partnership firm has to vacate the premises on or before 25. 4. 2004 and hand over possession; that under the circumstances, it has become absolutely necessary to shift the business; that the premises in question is required for immediate occupation of the petitioner's husband, and hence, an order of eviction was needed for bonafide requirement.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel arguing for the revision petitioner-tenant raised two points before this Court. Firstly, there was an agreement between the parties in 2003. THE Rent Control Appellate Authority has also observed in its order that there was an agreement as pleaded by the tenant. Once it has recorded a finding like that, automatically, the application should have been dismissed. Secondly, the tenancy period would extend till 2006; but, the RCOP was filed in 2003 itself. Under such circumstances, the order of the appellate authority has got to be set aside.