JUDGEMENT
B. P. Singh, J. -
(1.)The appellant before us is the landlord who filed two suits for eviction of two tenants from the premises owned by him in the city of Coimbatore, State of Tamil Nadu. His case was that he was conducting business in jewellery from a rented premises belonging to the municipality. The premises in question was located in the business centre of the city of Coimbatore surrounded on all sides by multi-storeyed buildings. He wanted to shift his business from the rented premises to his own premises. He also pleaded that the tenants were in default in payment of rent and, therefore, they were liable to be evicted on that ground alone. He further contended that he also wanted to demolish the premises in question and reconstruct it having regard to its utility, it being located in the business centre of the city of Coimbatore.
(2.)The Rent Controller as well as the appellate tribunal concurrently held that the appellant-landlord had been able to prove all the three grounds on which the eviction was claimed, namely, (i) the default in payment of rent; (ii) bona fide personal need for doing jewellery business; and (iii) for demolition and reconstruction of the building. The matter ultimately came up before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. Nos. 2196 of 1992 and 2197 of 1992.
(3.)The High court, by its impugned judgment and order of 21st October, 1997, set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the appellate tribunal and the Rent controller and dismissed the suits for eviction. On the question of default in payment of rent, the High Court held that the rent of the premises was Rs. 25/- per month only and that after filing of the suits, the rent for the period from 15th July, 1982 to 15th March, 1983 was deposited in court by the tenants on the first date of hearing, namely, 27th April, 1983. The learned counsel for the appellant-landlord submitted before us that the rent was not deposited on the first date of hearing, but we do not wish to consider this question because we find that the other two grounds for eviction have been made out by the appellant-landlord.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.