Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
D. Sasi Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Soundararajan – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7546-7547 of 2019, SLP (Civil) Nos. 12365-12366 of 2019
Decided On : 23-09-2019
(A) Rent and Eviction – Bonafide Necessity of Landlord – Tenant despite being in possession and knowing the ownership of property and also paying rent, has sought to urge a contention denying jural relationship – Eviction sought is not just for demolition and construction but is also for the bonafide use to set up a garment shop – When need of landlord was weighed in background of fact that tenant had another premises wherein he is carrying on business, evidence available on record would be sufficient to record satisfaction as provided under Section 10(3)(e) of Act, 1960 – Such conclusion while being taken note by Appellate Authority has also received similar consideration – In that light nature of findings as recorded by High Court is not appropriate in facts and circumstance of present case – Mere non-production of approved plan or documents to indicate financial capacity at this juncture cannot be held fatal in instant facts – Tenant owns two premises and no hardship will be caused – Fact of possession of alternate premises has been admitted by tenant in his cross examination – There can be no better proof than admission. [Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960] (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
(B) Rent and Eviction – Bonafide Necessity of Landlord – Landlord should not be penalised for slowness of legal system – Crucial date for deciding bonafide requirement of landlord is date of application for eviction – Entire delay cannot be attributed to landlord and deny relief – If as on the date of filing petition requirement subsists and it is proved, same would be sufficient irrespective of time lapse in judicial process coming to an end – Tenant granted time till 31.01.2021 to vacate and handover vacant possession of premises to landlord. [Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960] (Paras 11 , 12 and 13)
Facts of the Case:
Appellant herein was the petitioner before Principal District Munsif/Rent Controller in petition seeking eviction of the respondent therein. The said proceedings resulted in an appeal filed by appellant herein before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Court) which upheld the decision of the Rent Controller. Against the said concurrent orders the respondent herein approached High Court of Judicature at Madras in Civil Revision Petition. High Court reversed concurrent decisions, which is assailed by appellant herein.
Findings of the Court:
Nature of the requirement as stated by the landlord would be for running a garment shop which in any event could be run in the premises as it exists with minor alterations though the desire of landlord is also to demolish and reconstruct. Therefore, in that circumstance the mere nonproduction of approved plan or the documents to indicate financial capacity at this juncture cannot be held fatal in instant facts.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. BOPANNA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein was the petitioner before the Principal District Munsif/Rent Controller in the petition seeking eviction of the respondent therein. The said proceedings resulted in an appeal filed by the appellant herein before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Court) which upheld the decision of the Rent Controller. Against the said concurrent orders the respondent herein approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the Civil Revision Petition. The High Court reversed the concurrent decisions, which is assailed by the appellant herein. Since the rank assigned to the parties is different in the various proceedings, for the sake of convenience and clarity the appellant herein who was the original petitioner before the Rent Control Court would be referred to as the ‘landlord’ while the respondent therein would be referred to as the tenant.
3. The brief facts are that the landlord contending to be the owner of the petition schedule premises had filed the petition under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (‘Act’ 1960 for short) seeking for an order to direct the tenant to vacate and deliver the peaceful possession of the petition schedule property to the landlord. The manner in which the landlord had become the owner of the property based on a partition deed dated 24.02.1997 was referred. The tenant was in occupation of the premises for nonresidential purpose on a monthly rental of Rs. 600/-. The landlord contended that the premises is bona-fide required by him for setting up a garment shop and in that regard had further contended that since the premises requires alterations to be made in that regard, the landlord also intended to demolish the existing structure and put up a construction suitable for his purpose. The tenant had appeared and opposed the said petition by filing his objection statement, denying the entire case of the landlord including his claim to ownership over the property as well as the jural relationship. It was contended that the intention of the landlord is only to secure higher rent and as such the claim cannot be considered as a bona-fide requirement.
4. The Rent Control Court on having taken note of the rival contentions had framed two points for its consideration. The entire consideration revolved on the claim made by the landlord for own use and occupation as also the alternate premises available to the tenant. In order to establish the claim, the landlord examined himself as PW-1 and marked the documents at Exhibits P1 to P5. The tenant, on the other hand, examined three witnesses and relied upon the documents at Exhibits R1 to R9. The Court of the Rent Controller on analysing the documents and the evidence of the parties arrived at the conclusion that the claim as put forth by the landlord is established and accordingly on allowing the petition had directed eviction of the tenant by granting two months time to vacate.
5. The tenant claiming to be aggrieved was before the Appellate Authority in the statutory appeal provided under Section 23 of the Act, 1960. The Appellate Authority having adverted to the contentions has re-appreciated the oral as well as the documentary evidence. In that background making detailed reference to the legal position from the decisions cited before it had upheld the order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Rent Control Court and had dismissed the appeal. Against such concurrent orders the tenant approached the High Court in the Civil Revision Petition. The High Court once again referring to the evidence and the conclusion reached by the courts below had differed from the same and accordingly allowed the petition by holding that the bona-fide requirement as claimed by the landlord had not been proved. It is in that view the landlord claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard Shri R. Balasubramanium, learned senior counsel appeari
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
