P GANESAN 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. 6 of 2004 , whereby, the order of eviction made by the rent Controller, Sholinghur made in RCOP. No. 6 of 1999 was affirmed.

(2.) THE respondent filed the said RCOP. No. 6 of 1999 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 and out of those, one shop was being occupied by the revision petitioner/ tenant on monthly rental basis and 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 the place, where he is carrying on business. Under the circumstances, he has to shift his business to his own property. Thus the premises was required for his own use and occupation. Further the present building has got to be demolished and reconstructed. It is true that the respondent/ landlord was having Kalyana Mandapam from 1993 onwards. But that kalyana mandapam cannot be used for carrying on his business and except that, he had no other property. 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 application, that even in the Rent Control act, it has been made clear that it is applicable to Corporation and municipalities and the said Act came to be enacted in the year 1960. But the district and 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. 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, both the grounds, viz. , personal use and occupation and also demolition and reconstruction cannot exist together. In so far as the ground of demolition and reconstruction is concerned, the building is not proved to be old and it is not shown that sufficient means are available for raising construction and it is nothing but the landlord's intention to evict the tenant. Without considering this aspect legally and factually, both the authorities below have ordered eviction. Hence, the orders of lower court are liable to be set aside.