Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
N. Andal & Others
Versus
M.Salim & Another
C.R.P.No.1734 of 1999
Decided On : 25-11-1999
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - RELATIVE HARDSHIP - ASSESSMENT - SALES TAX ASSESSMENT - NOT A CONCLUSIVE FACTOR - FINANCIAL POSITION OF TENANT - RELEVANT FACTOR - AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION - BURDEN OF PROOF ON TENANT - JUDICIAL NOTICE OF SCARCITY OF ACCOMMODATION - NOT PERMISSIBLE - REVISION UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE RENT CONTROL ACT - SCOPE - HIGH COURT CAN REAPPRAISE EVIDENCE TO ASCERTAIN IF CONCLUSION OF RENT CONTROLLER IS WHOLLY UNREASONABLE OR BETRAYS LACK OF REASON AND/OR OBJECTIVITY.
Fact of the Case:
Landlords sought eviction of tenants from the ground floor of a building for additional accommodation for a family member. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition, but the Appellate Authority dismissed it, holding that the claim was not bona fide and that the tenants would be put to greater hardship. The landlords filed a revision petition under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Appellate Authority's decision was not in accordance with law. It held that the Appellate Authority had erred in relying solely on sales tax assessment to determine the bona fides of the landlords' claim for additional accommodation. The High Court also held that the Appellate Authority had failed to consider the evidence of the landlords regarding the difficulties they faced in carrying on their business in the demised premises. The High Court further held that the Appellate Authority had erred in holding that the tenants would be put to greater hardship if they were evicted. The High Court held that the tenants had not adduced any evidence to show that they had made any attempt to find alternative accommodation. The High Court also held that the Appellate Authority had erred in taking judicial notice of the scarcity of accommodation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in relying solely on sales tax assessment to determine the bona fides of the landlords' claim for additional accommodation? 2. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in failing to consider the evidence of the landlords regarding the difficulties they faced in carrying on their business in the demised premises? 3. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in holding that the tenants would be put to greater hardship if they were evicted? 4. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in taking judicial notice of the scarcity of accommodation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Sales tax assessment is not a conclusive factor in determining the bona fides of a landlord's claim for additional accommodation. 2. The financial position of the tenant is a relevant factor in assessing relative hardship. 3. The burden of proof is on the tenant to show that he will be put to greater hardship if he is evicted. 4. Judicial notice cannot be taken of the scarcity of accommodation.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and restored the order of the Rent Controller. It declared that the petitioners were entitled to evict the respondents on the ground that the building in question was required for their additional accommodation.
Landlords in R.C.O.P.No.442 of 1987, on the file of Principal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Madurai, are the revision petitioners.
2. Fifth petitioner is the father of petitioners 2 to 4. First petitioner is the step-mother of petitioners 2 to 4. Subject-matter of the eviction proceedings is in the possession of respondents who are man and wife. They are doing business in textiles therein under the name and style of ‘ABC Stores’, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.575.
3. The entire first floor portion is in the occupation of fifth petitioner wherein he is carrying on both manufacturing and sales of all kinds of hand blow (moulded) plastic toys and other various plastic items, and is carrying on that business under the name and style of ‘Rajam Plastic Industries’. He is carrying on the business for the past about ten years prior to the institution of the proceedings. He has a turnover of more than two lakhs of rupees per annum. According to petitioners, the space occupied by fifth petitioner is highly insufficient for the business. It is said that there is a staircase on the western side of the building which leads to the first floor. The breadth of the staircase is only about two feet. Number of labourers have been employed for assembling the toys, who are carrying on that job in the only hall in the first floor. In the same hall, in the first floor, fifth petitioner is carrying on the whole sale business of toys and other plastic items. As all the toys are moulded items fifth petitioner has to engage painters also to paint each and every piece of the toys. The painters are also doing their painting work in the same hall in the first floor. As there is no proper show room for the items manufactured by the fifth petitioner, he is not in a position to carry on the retail sales business. He is also not in a position to improve his business. It is said that the fifth petitioner has put up the manufacturing machine in the second floor open space in a temporary tiled structure. The manufacturing unit also emanates heat. Added to that, the labourers working in the machine are also affected by the heat of the sun. Due to this, the workers suffer various kinds of boils. The manufacturing unit has to be brought to the first floor, which uses inconvenience to the labourers. In view of these difficulties, fifth petitioner wanted the schedule premises, which is in the groundfloor, as additional accommodation. Fifth petitioner is the head of the family, and he is the sole breadwinner. The requirement for additional accommodation is bona fide It is also said that the hardship that might be caused to the tenants will not outweigh the advantage derived by the landlords. When a demand was made to the respondents/tenants, they refused to vacate, which necessitated the filing of the eviction petition.
4. In the counter filed by tenants, respondents herein, they have questioned the maintainability of the eviction petition, on the ground that petitioners 1 to 4 alone are the landlords, and fifth petitioner is only a member of the family. According to tenants, additional accommodation cannot be sought for, for a member of the family. The bona fides of the claim were also disputed by the tenants. They further contend that if relative hardships assessed, they will be put to greater difficulties. According to them, it is impossible to get an alternative accommodation for running a textile business in that locality, if they are directed to be evicted. They would further contend that their very livelihood will be affected. At the same time, the plastic manufacturing industry could be set up even outside the City. They have said that the space now used by the fifth petitioner is more than sufficient for his requirement.
5. On the above pleading, Rent Controller took oral and documentary evidence. Exs.A-1 to A-29 were marked on the side of petitioners, Exs.R-1 to R-9 were marked on the side of respondents. Oral evidence consisted of
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
