The definition of 'tenant' in Section 2(8) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1970 includes a surviving spouse, son, or daughter who had been living with the tenant at the time of their death, but not a son or daughter who was separate and not living with the tenant at the time of their death.

ORDER :-

KAILASAM, J.

The tenants are the petitioners. The respondent is a Charity and it applied for additional accommodation of the premises occupied by the petitioners under Section 10(2)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1970. Various legal contentions were raised by Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants. He submitted that one of the sons of the original tenant, Sri Raman, who died in 1960 is in the Air Force and as such he belongs to the essential service, and could nor be evicted. He relied on the definition of the word tenants in Section 2(8) which includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or legal representative of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family upto the death of the tenant, and submits that the clause "who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family upto the death of the tenant" would qualify only as the legal representative and not the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter. His contention is that usually in a clause like this, the rule of construction would limit the qualification to the last clause, that is, the legal representative alone. Though something could be said in favour of the grammatical construction, the entire context as well as the intention of the definition as a whole will have to be taken into account. In extending the meaning of the word 'tenant' it is easy to perceive the inclusion of the surviving spouse, son or daughter or legal representative who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family upto the death of the tenant; but, if the son and daughter were separate and were not living with a tenant at the tune of his death, there appears to be no reason for including them within the definition of the word tenants. In the context, therefore, the proper construction would be that the extended meaning of tenants would be applicable to a surviving spouse, son or daughter who had been living with the tenant at the time of his death. In this view, as admittedly the son who is in essential service was not living with the tenant at the time of his death, this contention will have to fail.

2. The second submission of Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, is that the Trust who is the respondent is in occupation of the downstairs for non-residential purposes and the petitioners-tenants are occupying the upstairs for residential purposes, and therefore, additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) can only be given to the landlord when it requires the building for the purpose for which it is used by the tenants. I do not see any such restriction in that clause. Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) makes it clear that when a landlord applies to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, he can either ask for possession of residential building under clause (3)(a)(i) or non-residential building under clause 3(a)(iii) and there also, the purpose for which the building could be obtained is made specific, while under Section 10(3)(c), the restrictions that are made applicable to Section 10(3)(a) are not insisted as Section 10(3)(c) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), the landlord can apply to the controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of title building to put the landlord in possession thereof, 2 he required additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be. In Section 10(3)(c), the building referred to is the entire building and not the building with the restricted meaning i.e. in occupation of the tenant alone or of the landlord alone. The building

in this clause would take in the entire building that to in o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document