A SHANMUGAM Vs. P R LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been brought forth by the tenant aggrieved over the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ranipet, made in RCA.No.5 of 2004 , whereby, the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller, Sholinghur, made in RCOP.No.5 of 1999 was affirmed.

(2.) THE respondent filed the said RCOP for eviction on two grounds. Firstly, the shop premises occupied by the tenant was required for his personal use and occupation and secondly it was required for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. THE case of the respondent-landlord was that he has purchased the property, which consists of number of shop premises; that out of those, one shop was being occupied by the revision petitioner-tenant on monthly rental basis; that the landlord has been carrying on business in plywood and glass articles in a rented premises; that there is a dispute between himself and the owner of that place, where he is carrying on business; that under the circumstances, he has to shift his business to his own property, and thus the premises was required for his own use and occupation; that further the present building has got to be demolished and reconstructed; that it is true that the respondent-landlord was having a Kalyana Mandapam from 1993 onwards; but, that kalyana mandapam cannot be used for carrying on his business; that except that, he had no other property, and hence, eviction has to be ordered.

(3.) ADVANCING the arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner-tenant, the learned Counsel would submit that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition; that even in the Rent Control Act, it has been made clear that it is applicable to Corporation and Municipalities; that the said Act came to be enacted in the year 1960; but, the District Municipalities Act was extended to three places including Sholinghur only on 14.6.2004, and thus, the provisions of Rent Control Act cannot be made applicable at all; that it is an admitted case that the landlord is carrying on his business in a place where he claimed that the super structure belonged to him, and therefore, there was no need for him to evict the tenant and occupy the present place. Added further the learned Counsel that both the grounds, namely personal use and occupation and also demolition and reconstruction, cannot exist together; that as far as the ground of demolition and reconstruction is concerned, the building is not proved to be old; that it is not shown that sufficient means are available for raising construction; that it is nothing but the landlord's intention to evict the tenant; that without considering this aspect both legally and factually, the authorities below have ordered eviction, and hence, the orders of authorities below are liable to be set aside.