Skip to content


Parthasarathy Pillai Vs. S.M. Shamsuddeen - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 38 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1972Mad98; (1971)2MLJ414
ActsCity Municipal Act - Sections 282
AppellantParthasarathy Pillai
RespondentS.M. Shamsuddeen
Cases Referred and R. Durairaju v. S. Palaniappa Gounder.
Excerpt:
- .....the result the landlord's application was allowed. the tenant filed h. r. a. no.175 of 1969 to the appellate authority. it was contended by the tenant that the premises in question was only a cattle shed and not a residential house, that he was carrying on the business of milk vendor for the past 20 years having 20 head of cattle. and that the application of the landlord was not bona fide. the appellate authority confirmed the order of the rent controller and dismissed the appeal.2. the tenant filed the above civil revision petition and his contention is that the building in question is not a residential building, that the dominant intent of letting the building is for a non-residential purpose, that the building is used for tethering a large number of cattle, that he has been carrying.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The tenant is the petitioner. The respondent herein (landlord) filed H. R. C. No. 1167 of 1968 on the file of the Sixth Judge, Court of Small Causes, for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of (1) requiring the premises for his own use and (2) default in payment of rent. The case of the landlord is that he purchased the house on 3-11-1967 for his own occupation, that he is residing in a rented house, and that the tenant has also committed default in payment of rent from November 1967 to February 1968. The tenant filed a counter denying default and also the requirement by the landlord of the building for his own use. The Rent Controller found that the tenant committed default in payment of rent. He held that the landlord required the building for his own use and he also gave a valid notice to quit. In the result the landlord's application was allowed. The tenant filed H. R. A. No.175 of 1969 to the appellate authority. It was contended by the tenant that the premises in question was only a cattle shed and not a residential house, that he was carrying on the business of milk vendor for the past 20 years having 20 head of cattle. and that the application of the landlord was not bona fide. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

2. The tenant filed the above civil revision petition and his contention is that the building in question is not a residential building, that the dominant intent of letting the building is for a non-residential purpose, that the building is used for tethering a large number of cattle, that he has been carrying on milk business, and that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 282 of the City Municipal Act to show that licence has been issued for the place in question for keeping the animals, and that this would show that the dominant intent of the landlord in letting the premises is for a non-residential purpose. In this connection, the learned counsel referred to a judgment of a Full Bench in Dakshinamurthi v. Thulja Bai, : AIR1952Mad413 (FB) where the test to determine whether the building is a residential or non-residential is set out. If the letting is for non-residential purpose. there is no provision in the Act to enable the owner seeking to occupy the building for his own use. The attempt of the tenant, therefore, is to establish that the letting was for a non-residential purpose to deprive the landlord of his right to claim the premises for his own use. The appellate authority relied on the evidence of P. W. 1 (landlord) that at the time of purchase he inspected the premises and found that there were four pucca rooms in the building wherein the tenant was residing and a vacant space where the tenant was tethering his cows, and that the property tax receipts which were perused by him at the time showed that the building in question was assessed as a residential building and not as a cattle yard. The appellate authority further found that the landlord has no other building except the building purchased by him for the purpose of his own occupation, that he is living in a rented house and that his requirement of the building is bona fide. The appellate authority is justified in upholding the landlord's contention., Following the decisions in Sasivarna Thevar v. Ponnu, 1957 1 MLJ 158 and R. Durairaju v. S. Palaniappa Gounder. : AIR1967Mad421 , I hold that the decision of the appellate authority is not liable to be set aside in revision. The civil revision petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed,. There will be no order as to costs.

3. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //