Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. RAMAN
M/s.Akthars, represented by its Proprietor, R.Syed Tajuddin
Versus
Hitesh V.Shah
C.R.P.No.1387 of 1999 and C.M.P.No.7720 of 1999
Decided On : 01-09-1999
TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1960 - SECTION 10(3)(A)(III) - EVICTION OF TENANT - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT OF LANDLORD - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - SUITABILITY OF PREMISES - DEMAND FOR HIGHER RENT - JURISDICTION OF RENT CONTROLLER - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant from the leased premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging that he required the premises for carrying on his own business. The tenant contested the application, claiming that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide and that he had other properties available for his business.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the landlord had established a bona fide requirement for the premises and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises after the filing of the application. The court also held that the demand for higher rent by the landlord did not indicate a lack of bona fide in the application.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord had a bona fide requirement for the premises. 2. Whether the subsequent events, including the tenant's cessation of occupation, could be considered in determining the landlord's requirement. 3. Whether the demand for higher rent by the landlord indicated a lack of bona fide in the application.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the landlord had established a bona fide requirement for the premises based on the following factors: - The landlord was not occupying any other non-residential building for the purpose of his business. - The premises in occupation of the tenant were suitable for the landlord's business. - The landlord had a genuine desire to start his own business. 2. The court held that subsequent events, including the tenant's cessation of occupation, could be considered in determining the landlord's requirement. 3. The court held that the demand for higher rent by the landlord did not indicate a lack of bona fide in the application, as it was a genuine demand for a market rate of rent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's revision petition and confirmed the order of the lower court granting eviction.
This revision is directed against the order of eviction passed by the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.A.No.218 of 1995.
2. Thepetitioner/ landlord filed an application for eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the petition maintained property under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the following allegations:
The petitioner has rented out the premises to the respondent for carrying on textile business at a monthly rent of Rs.1,300 per month. The petitioner attained majority in 1991. The petitioner requires the premises for carrying on his business. The petitioner issued a notice, requiring the respondent to vacate and hand over the possession on 27. 1991. The respondent sent a reply to the same on 18. 1991. The petitioner along with his father has been carrying on business in machine tools and electronic equipments. They were carrying on business at door No.67, Armenian Street, Chennai-1, in the name of Shiva Machine Tools’. The petitioner is not possessed of any other building. The petitioner is possessed of sufficient money to carry on a business of his own. The property in possession of the respondent is required for the business to be carried on by the petitioner. Hence, the petition.
3. Therespondent filed a counter, alleging as follows:
The allegations made in the petition are not correct. The respondents’ father was a tenant under the petitioner for several years. This petition is filed with a mala fide intention. To the notice issued by the petitioners, the respondent has sent a suitable reply. The petitioner and his father are possessed of other properties in the City of Madras. The petitioner is possessed of two other shops. The requirement is not bona fide. Hence, the respondent prays that the suit may be dismissed with costs.
4. Before the Rent Controller viz., the petitioner examined himself in support of his case while the respondent examined himself in support of his case. Exs.A-1 to A-12 and B-1 to B-24 were marked. The Rent Controller by his order dated 14. 1994, dismissed the application, against which the petitioner/ landlord preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.218 of 1995. The Appellate Authority by his order dated 3. 1999 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court, ordering eviction, Aggrieved by the said decision the tenant has now come up with this revision.
5. The point for determination in this revision is:
“Whether the petitioner requires the property bona fide for the purpose of carrying on his own business.”
6. Thepoint: The building a shop in dispute bears No.102 Khaleel Shirazi Estate, at No.31 Pantheon Road, Egmore. The revision petitioners father was inducted as tenant of the said shop. Later, after his death, his son the petitioner herein continued to be a tenant of the property. The property was looked after and managed by the father of the landlord and after the main petitioner viz., the landlord attained majority he has filed the application stating that since he has attained majority and as he wants to carry on a business of his own, he requires the premises bona fide for his occupation. That the present payable rent is at the rate of Rs.1,300 per month is not challenged. The property was let out to the tenant for the purpose of carrying on trade in textiles is also not challenged. It is also admitted that there are two other shops in the said building belonging to the respondent herein in the same complex.
7. Now, in that context, it has to be seen whether the bona fide requirement by the landlord has been established. It is to be pointed out in this connection that along with the appeal. The respondent landlord filed an application to receive certain documents to show that the tenant had since had ceased to carry on business in the property and that the property is kept simply locked. Of course, the said affidavit was not accepted by the lower court viz., the Appellate Aut
AI
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
