Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 1136
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Jayasimha Babu & The Honourable Mr. Justice T. Meenakumari
Raymonds Woollen Mills Limited, Madras - Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Azra and 2 others - Respondents
O.S.A.No.72 of 1998 and CMP.No.6517 of 1998
Decided On : 03 November 1999
A statutory tenant's right to carry out repairs to the tenanted premises is governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, particularly Section 22. Failure to comply with the statutory requirements, including providing notice to the landlord and obtaining permission from the Rent Controller, disentitles the tenant from carrying out the repairs, and the landlord is entitled to an injunction restraining such unauthorized repairs.
Headnote:
TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1960 - SECTION 22 - REPAIR OF BUILDING BY TENANT - PROCEDURE - NECESSITY OF NOTICE TO LANDLORD AND PERMISSION FROM RENT CONTROLLER - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS - NO RIGHT TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS - INJUNCTION AGAINST TENANT - JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a statutory tenant, embarked on the demolition and reconstruction of a portion of the roof and strengthening of walls in the tenanted premises without the landlord's consent or following the procedure prescribed under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant's actions amounted to 'repair' as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act and were subject to the provisions of Section 22. The failure to comply with the statutory requirements, including providing notice to the landlord and obtaining permission from the Rent Controller, disentitled the appellant from carrying out the repairs.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's actions constituted 'repair' as defined under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960? 2. Whether the appellant was required to comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 22 of the Act before carrying out the repairs? 3. Whether the appellant's failure to comply with the statutory requirements entitled the landlord to an injunction restraining the repairs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of 'repair' under Section 2(7) of the Act to include 'addition', 'alteration', and 'improvement' to the extent necessary for restoration. The court found that the appellant's actions, which involved demolishing and reconstructing a portion of the roof and strengthening the walls, fell within the definition of 'repair'. 2. The court held that Section 22 of the Act provides a comprehensive framework for regulating the tenant's right to carry out repairs. The tenant is required to provide notice to the landlord and obtain permission from the Rent Controller before commencing any repairs. The court emphasized the importance of this procedure in ensuring that the landlord has an opportunity to assess the necessity of the repairs and to participate in the decision-making process. 3. The court concluded that the appellant's failure to comply with the statutory requirements under Section 22 disentitled the appellant from carrying out the repairs. The court found that the appellant could not circumvent the statutory procedure by expressing a willingness to bear the cost of the repairs without seeking reimbursement from the landlord.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the injunction granted by the trial court, restraining the appellant from proceeding with the repairs. However, the court clarified that this order would not prevent the appellant from invoking Section 22 of the Act and seeking permission from the Rent Controller to carry out repairs in accordance with the statutory procedure.
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. Appellant is the statutory tenant of the premises of which the respondents are admittedly some of the co-owners. It is the case of the respondents who as plaintiffs instituted C.S.No.225 of 1998, that the appellant tenant has embarked on a wholly impermissible activity against the wishes of the landlord-the activity being the demolition of a portion of the roof, rebuilding the same and strengthening the walls to support that roof in a portion of the premises. Area of the roof so sought to be rebuilt is said to be about 1000 sq.ft. That portion is located at the rear of the premises in the occupation of the tenant, and is in the mezzanine floor. Appellant runs a textile show room in the tenanted premises, which is situated in Anna Salai in Chennai.
2. Plaintiffs had applied for, and had obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the appellant from proceeding with that work of rebuilding the roof and strengthening the walls. It is also their case that the safety of the other tenants in the building is endangered by that activity of the appellant.
3. The learned single Judge before whom the suit is pending, granted the injunction after holding that the plaintiff had made out aprima facie case and that the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff.
4. It was submitted by Mr.G.Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the Court should look to the realities of the situation namely, that the building is 100 years old; that the collapse of a part of the roof was only on account of the age of the building, and not by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the tenant; all that the tenant was doing was to reconstruct repair roof and strengthening the walls; that no financial burden is cast on the landlord as the tenant is willing to carry out the work entirely at its own cost; that the tenant is willing to have the work carried out by or under the supervision of the Engineers chosen by the landlord; and the benefit of the work so carried out will ultimately accrue to the landlord whose building is now being strengthened and improved. The justice and equities of the case, it was submitted, did not warrant the grant of injunction against the appellant-tenant.
5. Counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, contended that the rights of the appellant and the respondent are governed by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 by Section 22 of which the extent of the tenant's right to carry out any repair is regulated. The tenant having failed to follow the procedure prescribed by that provision, cannot now contend that, de hors, that provision, the tenant has a right, against the wishes of the landlord, to carry out the repairs or reconstruction to suit his convenience. It was pointed out that the landlord has not at any time consented to the proposed activity of repairing and strengthening the roof of the walls. Even in the pleadings filed by the appellant, it is the case of the appellant that it had sought permission, but such permission was denied. The tenant admittedly has not issued any statutory notice to the landlord under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and had not acquired any right to commence any repair, as the Rent Controller who alone was competent to give permission to carry out such work, had not even been made aware of the need for carrying out any work. It is also the case of the landlord that the tenant had not at any time sought their permission to carry out this work.
6. Section 22 of the Act reads thus:
"22. Failure by landlord to make necessary repairs:- (I) If a landlord fails to make necessary repairs to the building within a reasonable time after notice is given:-
(a) by the authorised officer in the case of a building in respect of which the Government shall be deemed to be the tenant under sub-section (5) of Section 3:
(b) by the tenant in case of any other building;
