P K KESAVAN NAIR Vs. C K BABU NAIDU
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.K. KESAVAN NAIR
C.K. BABU NAIDU
Click here to view full judgement.
Ramaswami, J. -
(1.) This is a civil revision petition which has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in H. R. A. NO. 490 of 1952, confirming the order of the Chief Rent Controller in H. R. C. No. 3075 of 1952.
(2.) The facts are: The respondent herein has constructed an automobile factory at No. 230 Tiruvottiyur High Road, Tondiarpet, Madras. In front of the premises, there is a small room measuring 15 feet by 12 feet which is now in the occupation of the petitioner, Kesavan Nair. This factory has been built at a cost of about six or seven lakhs of rupees and machinery have been shifted from Calicut where he was carrying on his business in the name and style of Malabar Fisheries. The application by the respondent to the Corporation of Madras for the issue of the necessary licence to run the factory was refused on the ground that the room in the front portion of the factory was in the occupation of some person and that the kacha roofing should be demolished and that as per the rules no portion of the factory premises should be in the occupation of another person. Thereupon steps were taken by the respondent to terminate the lease of the petitioner herein and to evict him from the front portion of the factory building by filing a petition before the House Rent Controller. The case for the petitioner before the Rent Controller was two-fold. Firstly he contended that the factory was not built at the place in No. 230 Thiruvottiyur High Road but only at No. 41 Seni Ammal Koil Street, Tiruvottiyur & secondly that the portion, he was occupying was not required for the purpose of the business which the respondent was carrying on or had intended to carry on in the near future. The learned Chief House Rent Controller inspected the premises and found that the automobile factory had actually been built at No. 230 Thiruvottiyur High Road and that some machinery used for automobile purposes had been erected in one of the portions of the factory. He also found that the factory referred to by the petitioner at No. 41 Seni Amman Koil Street was for the manufacture of cement blocks and tins and that these two factories are divided by means of a partition wall. In regard to the second contention of the petitioner the Chief Rent Controller held that the automobile business was being carried on by the respondent and that the very act of building the factory at a cost of six or seven lakhs of rupees is by itself an act of tunning the business.
(3.) The learned Chief House Rent Controller also balanced the advantages that would accrue to the respondent as also the hardship that would be caused to the petitioner if eviction were to be ordered and came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the hardship that would be caused to the petitioner would be greater than the advantage that the owner of the factory, namely, the respondent may have if the petitioner is evicted. In this view he ordered eviction and directed the petitioner to put the respondent in possession of the room he was occupying and in appeal this order was confirmed by the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.