Abdul Rahim and Bros. and anr. Vs. R.K. Selvan Bros. and ors.

Abdul Rahim and Bros. and anr. vs R.K. Selvan Bros. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 06, 1955

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/806611

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/806611
Court: Chennai High Court
Decided On: Oct 06, 1955
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - The appellate authority has found that neither of the conditions of the section, namely, (1) that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building and (2) that there was no reasonable cause for the same, were satisfied. It is unnecessary to go into all the reasons given by the learned appellate authority since I a...

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Rahim and Bros. and anr.

Respondent

R.K. Selvan Bros. and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: (1956)1MLJ237

Excerpt

- - the appellate authority has found that neither of the conditions of the section, namely, (1) that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building and (2) that there was no reasonable cause for the same, were satisfied. it is unnecessary to go into all the reasons given by the learned appellate authority since i am satisfied that the one ground given, viz......a reasonable cause.' there was no dispute that the tenant, notwithstanding that he did not carry on his wine business was regularly paying rent due in respect of the property.2. the rent controller acceded to the petition of the landlord and ordered eviction. the tenant filed an appeal to the appellate authority under section 13 of the act and the appeal was allowed and the order of eviction vacated. it is from this order that the present revision has been brought.3. the ground upon which the eviction is sought is under section 7(2)(v) of the act which runs thus:that where the building is situated in a place other than a hill-station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause.the appellate authority has found that neither of the conditions of the section, namely, (1) that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building and (2) that there was no reasonable cause for the same, were satisfied. it is unnecessary to go into all the reasons given by the learned appellate authority since i am satisfied that the one ground given, viz., that the tenant has not ceased to occupy the building is sufficient to dispose of the case. he has found, and it is not disputed, that the tenant had left furniture in the premises and was thus 'occupying' it. the act does not require that the tenant should carry on the business in order to prevent eviction. it is sufficient if he occupies it. keeping his furniture in the premises is sufficient occupation, in my opinion, within the meaning of section 7(2)(v). in this view the other questions raised need not be discussed.4. the revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.

1. This is a petition preferred by the landlord whose application for eviction of his tenant has been dismissed by the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. The tenant who is the respondent here took the premises on lease for the purpose of carrying on business in wine. On the introduction of prohibition into the Madras State the carrying on of this business became illegal with the result that from 1st October, 1948, the tenant ceased to do that business. This application was filed on 10th May, 1949, and the ground for eviction was that the tenant 'had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without a reasonable cause.' There was no dispute that the tenant, notwithstanding that he did not carry on his wine business was regularly paying rent due in respect of the property.

2. The Rent Controller acceded to the petition of the landlord and ordered eviction. The tenant filed an appeal to the appellate authority under Section 13 of the Act and the appeal was allowed and the order of eviction vacated. It is from this order that the present revision has been brought.

3. The ground upon which the eviction is sought is under Section 7(2)(v) of the Act which runs thus:

that where the building is situated in a place other than a hill-station, the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause.

The appellate authority has found that neither of the conditions of the section, namely, (1) that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building and (2) that there was no reasonable cause for the same, were satisfied. It is unnecessary to go into all the reasons given by the learned appellate authority since I am satisfied that the one ground given, viz., that the tenant has not ceased to occupy the building is sufficient to dispose of the case. He has found, and it is not disputed, that the tenant had left furniture in the premises and was thus 'occupying' it. The Act does not require that the tenant should carry on the business in order to prevent eviction. It is sufficient if he occupies it. Keeping his furniture in the premises is sufficient occupation, in my opinion, within the meaning of Section 7(2)(v). In this view the other questions raised need not be discussed.

4. The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Abdul Rahim and Bros. and anr. vs R.K. Selvan Bros. and ors. Same Subject Tenancy

Tenancy