SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., L.M. SHARMA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Dr. T. S. Subramanian (deceased) by Lrs., Appellant
Versus
The Andhra Bank Ltd., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2055 of 1989 ( Arising out of S.L.P. No. 1977 of 1988)
Decided on 29-3-1989.
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 – Section 10(3)(a)(iii), 40(3)(a)(iii) 10(3)(a)(c) and 10(3)(c) - petition for grant of Special Leave – Suit for premises - This petition for grant of Special Leave is by the representatives of landlord who died after the order, sought to be appealed against, was passed by High Court of Madras in C.R.P. setting aside, in exercise of its revisional powers concurrent orders of eviction passed by Rent Controller, in R.C.O.P. and confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A - Andhra-Bank, a nationalised Bank, is respondent-tenant which has succeeded in the revision proceedings before the High Court - Special Leave is granted and appeal taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this judgment - Ground floor of a built-area was leased to Andhra-Bank for a term-certain of 10 years under registered lease-deed - Respondent-bank has been running one of its branches in demised premises ever since landlord, along with members of his family was residing in first-floor of the building - Whether the need is held established is in respect of a substantial or unsubstantial portion of the premises– Held, court must add that having regard to the circumstances of this case, court considered that the case was one eminently fit for a reasonable settlement between the parties, with respondent-bank agreeing to yield up possession of some portions in its occupation - Consensus was necessary as the statute did not enable a partial eviction - Appeal was adjourned for this purpose on a couple of occasions - It has to be observed that the attitude of the respondent-bank was not helpful towards such a settlement - In the result, this appeal succeeds in part and order of the High Court is set aside - Revision petition is remanded to High Court for a fresh disposal in light of the following directions - Rest of the ground floor area - If the High Court is persuaded to this view it shall proceed to confirm the order of eviction passed by the courts - If, however, upon a construction of the eviction petition and consideration of other material High Court holds that the said "front portion" of the ground floor respecting which bona fide requirement cannot be held to have been established is a substantial or a major part of ground floor High Court will proceed to allow revision petition and, in reversal of the order of eviction, dismiss the eviction petition - Appeal is disposed of - Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT
VENKATACHALIAH, J. :— This petition, for grant of Special Leave, is by the representatives of the landlord who died on 19-9-1987 after the order, dated 10-8-1987 sought to be appealed against, was passed by the High Court of Madras in C.R.P. No. 2564/1985 setting aside, in exercise of its revisional powers the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Madras, in R.C.O.P. No. 4404 of 1983 and confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 41 of 1985. The Andhra-Bank, a nationalised Bank, is the respondent-tenant which has succeeded in the revision proceedings before the High Court.
Special Leave is granted and the appeal taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this judgment.
2. The ground floor of a built-area of 1960 sq. ft. in No. 116, Cutcherry Road. Mylapore, Madras-4, was leased to the Andhra-Bank for a term-certain of 10 years (with an option to the bank to renew the lease for two more years) under the registered lease-deed, dated 11-8-1971 (Exh. P.1). The respondent-bank has been running one of its branches in the demised premises ever since The landlord, Dr. T. S. Subramanian. along with the members of his family was residing in the first-floor of the building.
3. In the year 1983 Dr. Subramanian sought eviction of the respondent-bank from the premises on grounds envisaged in S. 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (Act). The eviction petition, at para 3, refers to the purpose of the lease thus : -
"............As per terms of the lease the total area of 1960 Sq. ft, was let out solely for the purpose of respondents renting a banking business, and a small portion of the same for the purpose of agent of the Bank to reside there .........."
Dr. Subramanian, it would appear, had undergone a major heart-surgery at Ohio in U.S.A.; that his wife, it was alleged, was a patient of hyper-tension and that both of them were advised against claimbing stairs; that the requirement of the members of his family for residential accommodation had been increasing and that the landlord desired to use the "front portion" of the ground-floor for purposes of a business which one of his sons, Dr. Kumar Subramanian, who had resigned from a professorship in the IIT, Madras had started. The averments of the landlord in support of the prayer for eviction are the following
"........The petitioner further states that he has got two sons one Mr. Ramji Subramanian and another Dr. Kumar Subramanian. His second son Dr. Kumar Subramanian was a Professor in I.I.T. Madras specialised in the field of computer science. Both his sons reside with him in the same building on the Ist floor ........."
"........At the same time, the petitioner submits that the house was built by him as a residential house for the occupation of his family but since in 1971 the family was small the petitioner gave the bank the ground floor on a long lease. During this 10 years of lease period the petitioners sons got married he got granchildren and the upstairs which was sufficient originally for the family became insufficient ........"
".........The petitioner submits that within a year of giving the said premises on lease the petitioner started having heart trouble and the doctors advised him not to climb upstaris but he was helpless as he had already leased out the ground floor to the respondent and the lease being for 10 years could not approach them to vacate. Thus in 1973 the petitioner had an open heart surgery performed at Cleveland, Ohio, wherein the doctors had to go in for a coronary bypass when the petitioner was advised to avoid climbing upstairs........"
".....At the same time in the last few years the petitioners wife became a patient of hypertension and both the petitioner and his wife were repeatedly requested and advised by the doctors not to climb upstairs ........"
".........The petitioner submits that he is planning to use the front portion of ground floor of his pre
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.