1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.869 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011 N.Balakrishnan .. Petitioner Vs. Narasimman .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair and decretal order dated 17.12.2008 passed in Rent Control Appeal No.9 of 1998 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichirappalli confirming the fair and decretal order dated 29.10.1997 passed in R.C.O.P.No.177 of 1993 by the Rent Controller, Trichirappalli. For Petitioner : M/s.J.Maria Roseline For Respondent : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan ORDER The concurrent orders passed in R.C.O.P.No.177 of 1993 and in Rent Control Appeal No.9 of 1998 by the Rent Controller and by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichirappalli are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.177 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller, Trichirappalli under Section 10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as respondent. 3. It is stated in the petition that the respondent has been occupying the demised building as a tenant of the petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs.200/- and the petitioner has been serving in the General Merchant Shop of his brother and therefore the petitioner is having sufficient experience so as to run a shop in the demised building. Under the said circumstances, the demised building is required for own use and occupation of the petitioner and therefore the present petition has been filed. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent, all the averments made in the petition have been denied. 5. The Rent Controller after considering all the contentions raised on either side has allowed R.C.O.P.No.177 of 1993 and thereby passed an order of eviction. Against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the respondent/tenant as appellant has filed Rent Control Appeal No.9 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed Rent Control Appeal No.9 of 1998 and thereby confirmed the eviction order passed in R.C.O.P.No.177 of 1993. Against the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the respondent/tenant as revision petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the demised building is a small shop and it carries monthly rental of Rs.200/- and the petitioner has demanded higher rent and since the respondent has failed to concede the demand made on the side of the petitioner, the present petition has been filed purely on false and frivolous grounds and there is no bona fide in the requirement of the petitioner and the authorities below without considering the fact that the requirement of the petitioner is not bona fide, have erroneously rejected the defence taken on the side of the revision petitioner and therefore the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below are liable to be interfered with. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner/landlord has contended that the demised building is a non-residential building and the petitioner has been working in the General Merchant Shop of his elder brother and therefore he is having sufficient experience in business and he has decided to start a business in the demised building and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed and in order to prove the contention urged on the side of the petitioner relevant evidence has been let in and the authorities below after considering all the contentions raised on either side, have rightly rejected the defence putforth on the side of the respondent and therefore the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. As stated earlier, the present petition has been filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The specific case of the petitioner is that he has decided to start a business in the demised building. The petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 and his elder brother has been examined as P.W.2. Both of them have clearly stated in their evidence about the bona fide requirement of the demised building. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been working in the General Merchant Shop of his elder brother and also considering that the demised building is a non- residential building, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that the requirement of the petitioner is really a bona fide one. 10. The authorities below after considering all the contentions raised on either side, have rightly rejected the defence putforth on the side of the revision petitioner/ respondent/tenant. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any attractive force in the contentions urged on the side of the revision petitioner and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the orders passed by the authorities below in R.C.O.P.No.177 of 1993 and in Rent Control Appeal No.9 of 1998 are confirmed. However the revision petitioner is given six https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 months time to vacate the demised building. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichirappalli. 2.The Rent Controller, Trichirappalli. + 1 cc to Mr.J.Maria Roseline, Advocate, SR No.36805 C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.869 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 21.10.2011 smn RJ/4.11.11 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/