1999 Supreme(Mad) 1134
High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Jayasimha Babu & The Honourable Mr. Justice
T. Meenakumari
Raymonds Woollen Mills Limited, Madras
Versus
Mrs. Azra and 2 others
O.S.A.No.72 of 1998 and CMP.No.6517 of 1998
Decided On : 03-11-1999
Mr. G. Subramanian, Senior Counsel for Mr. B.T. Seshadri, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.G.Vijay Anand, Advocate for the Respondents.
A statutory tenant's right to carry out repairs is governed by Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and the tenant must comply with the procedure prescribed therein, including obtaining permission from the Rent Controller.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - REPAIR OF BUILDING - SECTION 22 OF THE TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1960 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - TENANT'S RIGHT TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 22 - LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING TENANT'S RIGHT TO REPAIR.
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 and without 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 that the appellant was required to comply with the provisions of Section 22 before carrying out any repairs. The court further held that the appellant's willingness to bear the cost of repairs did not exempt him from complying with the statutory requirements.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's actions amounted to repair as defined under Section 2(7) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960? 2. Whether the appellant was required to comply with the provisions of Section 22 of the Act before carrying out any repairs? 3. Whether the appellant's willingness to bear the cost of repairs exempted him from complying with the statutory requirements?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of repair under Section 2(7) of the Act to include additions, improvements, or alterations necessary to carry out the restoration of the premises. 2. The court held that Section 22 of the Act provides a complete code governing the tenant's right to carry out repairs and that the tenant must comply with the procedure prescribed therein. 3. The court held that the appellant's willingness to bear the cost of repairs did not exempt him from complying with the statutory requirements.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, subject to the observation that the appellant could invoke Section 22 of the Act and carry out repairs as permitted by the Rent Controller.
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 tenants 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