S VENUGOPAL Vs. A KARRUPPUSAMI
LAWS(SC)-2006-3-45
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on March 28,2006

S.VENUGOPAL Appellant
VERSUS
K.KARRUPPUSAMI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VIJAY SINGH VS. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAVINDRA VARMA VS. VANADJA [LAWS(MAD)-2007-2-119] [REFERRED TO]
KAKARLA VENKATESHWARLU VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
K KUNHI MOOSA VS. P SAMBANDAM CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-433] [REFERRED TO]
VALLI VS. B V RANGARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-416] [FOLLOWED]
JAGDISH CHAND VS. KANGRA RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2011-4-153] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALDAS VS. Y J.SHAMSHUDEEN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-260] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWAMITRA RAM KUMAR VS. VESTA TIME COMPANY [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP LAL JAURA VS. ADARSH CONFECTIONERS [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-430] [REFERRED]
HARIKRISHNAN DAGA VS. LOKNATH RAO [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-136] [REFERRED TO]
M M MOHAMED ALI VS. ELITE ELECTRONICS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-200] [REFERRED TO]
V.S.RAMASAMY GOUNDER VS. P.S.P.MOHAMED MOIDEEN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-129] [REFERRED TO]
RANGAIAH CHETTY VS. FEROZ KHANOON [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-102] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV CHARAN DASS VS. UPDESH SAHNI [LAWS(HPH)-2011-1-145] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV PRASHAD VS. HARI DASS SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
M ASHOKAN VS. M DHANASEKARA PANDIAN DIED [LAWS(MAD)-2009-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
M GANESAN VS. R SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-454] [REFERRED TO]
G GEETHA VS. S R KRISHNAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-359] [REFERRED TO]
SATHISH KUMAR ARORA VS. NEERU KAPOOR [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-139] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAM VS. P.A. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-512] [REFERRED TO]
B VENKATESAN VS. M K SELVARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-188] [REFERRED TO]
NET RAM AND SONS VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
PARASMAL PROP MEHTA STORES VASTRALAYA NO 137 MINT STREET CHENNAI 600079 VS. R MOHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-231] [REFERRED TO]
V MANI VS. TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-167] [REFERRED TO]
K SOMASUNDARAM VS. ARUMUGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-232] [REFERRED TO]
ALAUDDIN SAHIT VS. R. JOTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-180] [REFERRED TO]
ALAUDDIN SAHIT VS. R. JOTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-180] [REFERRED TO]
BOSOTTO BROS BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS VS. ARUNA CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-352] [REFERRED]
M V KRISHNA VS. GOSULA SUDHA MADHURI [LAWS(APH)-2008-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHANA DEVI VS. ARUN KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2011-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
KESRI DEVI VS. HARI DASS SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
LEO COFFEE GRINDING WORKS VS. D MOHANALAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
J JOSEPHINE VS. P SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-405] [REFERRED TO]
DURGARAM VS. SYED SAHIR AHMED [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-473] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-295] [REFERRED TO]
MADURAI RAMNAD BUS OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. S.JANAKI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-104] [REFERRED TO]
M.RAJARATHINAM VS. J.BABU SHANTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-122] [REFERRED TO]
V ARUNACHALAM VS. SANTHANALAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
J.BOORARAM ALIAS J.B.CHOUDRY VS. B.MOHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-12-85] [REFERRED TO]
ZARINA P.K. DAVID VS. PURUSHOTAM LAL SHARMA. [LAWS(HPH)-2011-3-375] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK BOOT HOUSE VS. PIYARE LAL SOOD [LAWS(HPH)-2013-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN VS. ISHWAR CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2013-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH MALIK (DECEASED) VS. J.S. SHARMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-87] [REFERRED TO]


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.