Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOMASUNDARAM
Ms. Hussain Lorry Booking Service, Coimbatore and Others - Appellant
Versus
A. Sirajuddin - Respondents
C.R.P. No. 2485 of 1989
Decided On : 20 March 1991
EVICTION - GROUNDS - DENIAL OF TITLE - BONA FIDE - TENANT'S DENIAL OF LANDLORD'S TITLE TO SUPERSTRUCTURE IN EVICTION PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTES GROUND FOR EVICTION IF NOT BONA FIDE - PETITIONER ENTITLED TO EVICTION ORDER ON GROUND OF RESPONDENTS' DENIAL OF TITLE TO PETITION MENTIONED BUILDING IN EVICTION PROCEEDINGS - DENIAL NOT BONA FIDE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed an application for eviction against respondents under Ss.14(i)(b) and 14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground that the petitioner required the petition mentioned property for his own use and for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The respondents resisted the application contending that they are the owners of the superstructure and that the petitioner is only the owner of the vacant site.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found that the petitioner has title to both the vacant land as well as to the building and that the respondents' denial of the petitioner's title to the superstructure is not bona fide. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction on the ground that the respondents denied the title of the petitioner to the petition mentioned building in the course of the eviction proceedings and such denial of the petitioner's title by the respondents is not bona fide.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction on the ground that the respondents denied the title of the petitioner to the petition mentioned building in the course of the eviction proceedings and such denial of the petitioner's title by the respondents is not bona fide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Majati Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishna Rao, 1989 AIR(SC) 2187, which held that a denial of title in the course of eviction petition constitutes a ground for eviction provided the denial is not bona fide and it is not necessary that in order to constitute a ground for eviction, the denial of the title must be anterior to the filing of the eviction petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the civil revision petition and granted the tenant four months for vacating the premises on condition that the tenant files an affidavit within four weeks from the date of the order undertaking to vacate the premises after the expiry of the said period of four months.
The respondents in R.C.O.P. No. 93 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Coimbatore are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.
2. The petitioner filed an application for eviction against the respondents under Ss.14(i)(b) and 14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 93 of 1983 is as follows :
The first respondent is a registered firm whose present partners are respondents 2 and 3. Formerly the Second respondent and F. Mohamed Hussain were partners of the firm. After the death of F. Mohamed Hussain, the third respondent herein has become the partner along with the second respondent in the respondents-firm. The respondents 4 to 9 are the legal heirs of the deceased partners of F. Mohamed Hussain. The petitioner purchased the petition mentioned property on 19-9-1974 and at the time of purchase it was subject to a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 14-5-1967 executed by the petitioner's vendor in favour of one Rahman Shariff, who was in possession of the petitioner mentioned property as usufructuary mortgagee. The deceased F. Mohamed. Hussain was the tenant in respect of the petition mentioned property under the ususfructuary mortgagee in the first instance and later on after the redemption of the usufructuary mortgage the said Mohamed Hussain became the tenant under the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner filed an application for eviction against the said F. Mohamed Husain in R.C.O.P. No. 327 of 1975 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore on the ground that the petitioner required the petition mentioned property for his own use and for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 327 of 1975 contested the application, but, finally submitted to an order of eviction and took time to vacate the building. Before the petitioner could execute the order of eviction obtained by him in R.C.O.P. No. 327 of 1975 the respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit O.S. No. 518 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore for declaration that the first respondent-firm was the tenant of the petition mentioned property and the order of eviction, obtained against Mohamed Hussain in his individual capacity in R.C. O.P. No. 327 of 1975 was not binding on respondents 1 to 3 and prayed for the relief of injunction. In the suit the respondents 1 to 3 also raised the contentions that what was taken on lease was only a site and not the building. The civil court negatived the plea of the respondents 1 to 3 that the original lease was in respect of the site alone, but hold that the lease was in respect of both the site as well as the building. It was further held in O.S. No. 518 of 1979 that the tenant of the petition mentioned property is the first respondent-firm and not the individual, Mohamed/Hussain. As per the decision of the civil court in O.S. No. 518 of 1979 the petitioner is a landlord and the first respondent-firm and its partners are tenants with regard to the petition mentioned premises. The petition mentioned building is an old and substantial one. The petitioner purchased the property primarily for the site value with a view to put up thereat a new structure after pulling down the existing structure for a better and profitable investment and increased return on such investment.
3. The respondents resisted the application for eviction contending as follows; The respondents are the owners of the superstructure described in the petition and the petitioner is only the owner of the vacant site and that the first respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act. As there is a bona fide dispute regarding
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
