IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.08.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.1709 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 R.V.T.Sambandam .. Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent/Tenant vs. K.K.I.Mohamad Ali .. Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner/Landlord Civil Revision Petition filed under section 25 of Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 25 of 1960 as amended by Act 21 of 1973 & Act 1 of 1980 against the Order, dated 08.08.2006 made in R.C.A.No.631 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the order, dated 17.12.2004 made in R.C.O.P.No.1338 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Controller / XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. For petitioner : Mr.N.F.J.Ponnudurai For Respondent : Mr.T.Rajamohan O R D E R This Civil Revision has been preferred against the Order, dated 08.08.2006 made in R.C.A.No.631 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the Order, dated 17.12.2004 made in R.C.O.P.No.1338 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Controller / XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The revision petitioner is the tenant in the premises described in the schedule of the Rent Control Original Petition and the property was given for non-residential purposes. The respondent / landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.1338 of 2004 for evicting the tenant / revision petitioner herein, on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [herein referred to as Act]. According to the respondent, he is running a small restaurant in 200 sq.ft at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ground floor adjacent to the petition mentioned property and that the revision petitioner is keeping the premises let out to him under lock and key. 3. The Learned Rent Controller, considering the evidence adduced by the respondent / landlord has ordered for eviction. Aggrieved by which, the revision petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by the impugned Judgment confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. 4. Mr.N.F.J.Ponnudurai, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that there was no reasonable opportunity given to the revision petitioner / tenant before the Rent Controller for adducing evidence. According to him, the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority have flouted the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. But, he has not specifically pointed out any illegality or material irregularity against the concurrent findings of the court below. 5. According to Mr.T.Rajamohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / landlord, the respondent / landlord himself was examined as P.W.1 before the Court below, he has produced four documents to establish his bonafide that he was running a small restaurant, for which, he produced xerox copy of the license issued by the Corporation of Chennai for the year 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively as Exs.P.1 to P.3 and the copy of the license obtained from fire service authority for the premises as Ex.P.4. 6. The evidence adduced by P.W.1, the landlord and the documents marked on the side of the respondent / landlord as Exs.P.1 to P.4 would show that the respondent is running a small restaurant nearby the petition mentioned property. According to him, even as per the Rent Control Original Petition, he was running the restaurant in a place of 200 sq.ft, which is insufficient, even to accommodate his customers and also for making a modern kitchen and to run his aforesaid business. 7. The revision petitioner has submitted that the respondent is financially a sound person and therefore, he is capable of extending his business. In the oral evidence, the respondent / landlord has stated that if the wall between the two portion (cross-wall) is removed, the petition mentioned property and the premises where he is running his tea stall would be a hall. As per the evidence available on record, the revision petitioner / tenant was originally running a press and subsequently, doing some other business. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the counter filed by the revision petitioner in the R.C.O.P, wherein at paragraph number 10, the revision petitioner has averred as follows : "The petitioner has surprisingly suppressed the fact and stated as if the business has been stopped from May 2004 and the tenancy portion has been kept unused under lock and key is false. Grant of loan is awaited to start business for the survival of my family." From the averments, the revision petitioner has admitted that he was not running any business in the rented premises and he was awaiting for the loan, in order to start his business. He has not even stated what was the business to be started by him at the rented premises. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has given a finding that the revision petitioner / tenant was keeping the rented premises, without running any business under lock and key and that he is waiting for getting a loan to run business and in the impugned Judgment, it has been stated that the revision petitioner has stated that he was running some business in the name of S.P.Graphics, for which he has not produced any supporting documents, even before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 9. This revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Act, which is similar to that of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 25 of the Act, this Court on application of any person aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Authority, call for and examine the record of the Appellate Authority, to satisfy itself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. This Court can modify, annul, reverse or remit back the matter to the court below, to meet the ends of justice. 10. To invoke Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, I am of the view that the Court below could have exceeded its jurisdiction or fail to exercise its jurisdiction or the finding should be of material irregularity or illegality or there should be perverse finding, leading to miscarriage of justice, so as to warrant the interference of this Court. 11. In the instant case, the respondent / landlord has filed the petition, seeking eviction, on the ground of additional accommodation. The revision petitioner / tenant appeared through counsel in the RCOP proceedings and also filed his counter. Though the respondent / landlord adduced evidence both oral and documentary, the revision petitioner / tenant has not produced any evidence to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ substantiate his claim for the reasons best known to him. The learned Rent Controller, considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the documents, has ordered eviction under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act. Aggrieved by which, the revision petitioner / tenant has preferred RCA before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Even before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the revision petitioner / tenant has not produced any supporting documents to show that the claim of the respondent / landlord was not bonafide and also to show that the revision petitioner / tenant was running any business in the rented premises. 12. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / landlord, it has been established by the respondent / landlord that he was running a small restaurant in 200 sq.ft area of the ground floor adjacent to the rented premises. He has also produced the license continuously for three years obtained from the Corporation of Chennai along with the other supporting document obtained from the Fire Services Authority. The said 200 sq.ft of land, according to the respondent / landlord is insufficient for accommodating his customers coming to the restaurant, which cannot be construed as a malafide attempt by the respondent / landlord to evict the revision petitioner / tenant. There is no satisfactory reason on the side of the revision petitioner / tenant for the non-production of any supporting documents, for which he cannot blame the courts below saying that no reasonable opportunity was given. 13. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent / landlord, the Rent Control Original Petition was filed in the year 2004 and the order of eviction was passed on 17.12.2004. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order on 08.08.2006 in R.C.A.No.631 of 2005. However, the revision petitioner / tenant has not produced any supporting documents even before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in order to establish that he was running any business in the rented premises or to show that the Rent Control Original Petition was filed not on any bonafide grounds by the respondent / landlord. Even in the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority,it is found that the revision petitioner was keeping the rented premises under lock and key, the same has not been disputed by any supporting documents. 14. Unless there is material irregularity in the impugned order or perverse finding, leading to miscarriage of justice, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 15. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and the records, based on the arguments advanced by both sides, I am of the view that there is no error or infirmity in the impugned Judgment of the courts below to be interfered with, under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, by way of revision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. Tsvn To 1. The VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. + 1 CC To Mr.T.Rajamohan, Advocate SR NO.47321 + 2 CC To Mr.N.F.J.Ponnudurai, Advocate SR NO.47947 C.R.P. (NPD) No.1709 of 2006 SSN {CO} TP/10.9.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/