1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION(NPD)No.2110 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 P.Dhanuskodi .. Petitioner/Tenant Vs. Bagyalakshimi .. Respondent/Land Owner Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair and decretal order dated 20.09.2011 passed in Rent Control Appeal No.65 of 2010 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Madurai modifying the fair and decretal order dated 27.01.2009 passed in R.C.O.P.No.61 of 2006 by the Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramasubramanian For Respondent : Mr.T.Srinivasa Raghavan ORDER The concurrent orders of eviction passed in R.C.O.P.No.61 of 2006 by the Rent Controller/ Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town and in Rent Control Appeal No.65 of 2010 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Madurai are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.61 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10 (3)(a)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, wherein it has been stated that as per the final decree passed in Original Suit No.927 of 1992, the demised building and its adjoining building have been allotted to the share of the petitioner. The demised building has been rented out to the respondent on monthly rental basis and now the agreed monthly rent is Rs.300/- and the respondent has committed wilful default in paying monthly rent and the demised building is required for reconstruction and for additional accommodation. The demised building is required to the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 3. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent, it has been stated that originally monthly rent is Rs.40/- and periodically raised and now the present monthly rent is Rs.150/-. Since the petitioner has refused to receive rent, R.C.O.P.No.308 of 2000 has been filed for depositing rent. The said Rent Control Original Petition has been dismissed with a specific direction to remit the rent to proper landlord. It is false to say that the demised building is required for additional accommodation of the petitioner. The demised building is a separate tenement and the same has no connection whatsoever with the portion in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 which the petitioner is living and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the rival evidence available on record, the Rent Controller has found that the respondent/tenant has committed wilful default in paying monthly rent and thereby passed an order of eviction and the same has been challenged in Rent Control Appeal No.65 of 2010 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 5. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has found that the demised building is required for additional accommodation and the appellant/tenant has not committed any wilful default in paying monthly rent and dismissed Rent Control Appeal No.65 of 2010 on the ground of additional accommodation. Against the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the respondent/tenant as revision petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has attacked the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in Rent Control Appeal No.65 of 2010 on the following grounds: (a) The present petition has been filed mainly on two grounds, namely, wilful default and additional accommodation and the building, in which the petitioner is residing, is a separate tenement and the tenanted premises is a separate tenement and the same has no connection whatsoever with the building in which the petitioner is residing and the appellate forum has failed to look into it. (b) The petitioner is having pathway so as to reach West Chithirai Street. Under the said circumstances, reconstruction of the demised building does not arise and further the present petition has not been filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and therefore the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of additional accommodation is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner/ landlady has contended that already an original suit has been filed in Original Suit No.927 of 1992, wherein a final decree has been passed as per order passed in Interlocutory Application No.387 of 2000 and in the said final decree, the petitioner has been allotted two portions and in one portion the petitioner is residing and another portion is nothing, but tenanted premises and since both properties are one and the same, the demised building is required for additional accommodation and the Rent Control Appellate Authority after considering the juxtaposition of the property, in which the petitioner is residing and also demised building has rightly allowed R.C.O.P.No.61 of 2006 on the ground of additional accommodation and therefore the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in Rent Control Appeal No.65 of 2010 is not liable to be set aside. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in Gangaram v. N.Shankar Reddy reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 302, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if there are two separate tenements and one tenement has no connection whatsoever with the other tenement, question of seeking https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 does not arise. 9. The present petition has been filed mainly on two grounds, namely, wilful default and additional accommodation. The Rent Controller has allowed the petition on the ground of wilful default. But the finding given by the Rent Controller with regard to wilful default has been set aside by the appellate forum and the appellate forum has found that the demised building is required for additional accommodation. 10. In the petition filed on the side of the respondent/ petitioner, it has been clearly stated that the demised building is required for reconstruction and ultimately it has been stated that the demised building is required for additional accommodation. 11. The only point that comes up for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the property in which the petitioner is residing and the demised building are one and the same and the demised building is required for additional accommodation of the petitioner? 12. On the side of the respondent/ petitioner/landlady, Ex.P.1 has been filed. Ex.P.1 is a certified copy of final decree passed in Interlocutory Application No.387 of 2000 in Original Suit No.927 of 1992 by the Second Additional Sub Court, Madurai, wherein it has been clearly stated that the property in which the petitioner is residing as well as the demised building have been allotted to the share of the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the demised building is situate immediately on the eastern side of the building, in which the petitioner is residing. Considering the fact that both the properties are contiguous properties and also considering the condition made in the final decree passed in Interlocutory Application No.387 of 2000 in Original Suit No.927 of 1992, this Court is of the view that both the portion, in which the petitioner is residing and also the tenanted premises are one and the same. Under the said circumstances, the demised building is required for additional accommodation of the petitioner. Further in the final decree passed in Interlocutory Application No.387 of 2000 in Original Suit No.927 of 1992, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner has to make provision for creating passage in the northern side of the demised building. On that ground also, the demised building is required for additional accommodation of the petitioner. 13. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after considering the lie of the demised building and also the portion in which the petitioner is residing, has rightly found that the demised building is required for additional accommodation of the petitioner. In view of the discussion made earlier, this court has not found any error in the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and therefore the contention putforth on the side of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. 14. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Rent Control Appeal No.65 of 2010 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Madurai is confirmed. However the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 revision petitioner is given six months time to vacate the demised building. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority/ The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2.The Rent Controller/ Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town. + 1 cc to Mr.T.Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate, SR No.43914 + 1 cc to Mr.M.Ramasubramanian, Advocate, SR No.44402 C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2110 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 15.12.2011 smn RJ/4.1.12 4p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/