P. RAMESH @ MANICKAM Vs. M. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein (Tenant) has filed this petition against the respondent (Landlord), seeking to set aside the order dated 05.11.2015 made in R.C.A.No. 1 of 2015 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Theni confirming the order dated 12.06.2014 made in R.C.O.P.No. 6 of 2013 on the file of Rent Control Authority, Theni R.C.O.P.No. 6 of 2013 was filed by the Landlord for evicting the Tenant so as to give vacant possession of the property to the Landlord. Aggrieved by the same, the Tenant filed R.C.A.No. 1 of 2015 for setting aside the said order, which, while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the order of the Rent Control Authority, Theni. Challenging both the orders, revision petitioner/Tenant is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the Tenant that the Landlord borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from him and permitted him to occupy the demised premises for the interest payable to him, pursuant to which, he is in possession of the property as a usufructuary mortgagee and he cannot be termed as a Tenant. It is the further case of the Tenant that the Landlord, instead of filing a suit for redemption of mortgage, has sought for eviction of the Tenant by wrongly invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which is legally not maintainable. Since there is no wilful default alleged as against him, the present petition for eviction is not maintainable and the contention of the Tenant that the premise is required for running a tailoring shop, is unjustifiable and the same has to be proved by adducing evidence under the Act. Contending that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Authority, confirmed by the Appellate Authority is erroneous and contrary to law, it is prayed that those orders need interference by this Court.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the Landlord has stated that the Tenant had earlier filed O.S.No. 56 of 2010 claiming to have leasehold rights on the property and the said suit was dismissed and in consequence of the order, the Landlord had deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- in Court. The Tenant had neither withdrew the deposit amount nor started paying monthly rent for the premises. It is further stated that since the wife of the Landlord is a member of a Co-operative Society, imparting training for tailoring work, the premise is required for staring a tailoring business for their livelihood. Therefore, the Rent Control Authority has considered all the factors and passed a well considered order, directing the Tenant to vacate the premise and the said order does not call for any interference by this Court.