Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5691
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
P.S.Venkatajan
Versus
C.Devan
S.A.No.193 of 1998
Decided on : 18-12-2009
For the Appellant: Mr.S.Parthasarathy.
For the Respondent:Mr.G.Vasudevan, Advocates.
Ratios:
a. Admission of a tenant about the factum of new construction dispenses with the proof of intimation of completion of construction to the local authority.
b. Mere failure of the landlord in informing the local authority about the completion of construction would not deny him the benefit of exemption from the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Headnote:(A)Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960(18 of 1960)-Sec.30-Lease and rent control-Building-New building-Exemption-Eviction-Civil Court-Jurisdiction-Local authority-Intimation-Interpretation of statutes-Mandatory or directory-Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the tenant and the tenant pleaded that the completion of the building construction was not notified to the local authority. Hence, plaintiff could not avail exemption and the civil Court had no jurisdiction-Trial Court held that on the failure of the owner to notify the local authority about completion of construction, condition for availing exemption is not complied and civil Court had no jurisdiction-Decision was appealed by the plaintiff-Both parties stood by their stands-Held, intention behind the condition was to facilitate the ascertainment of new construction and on clear admission of the tenant that it was a new construction, the non-intimation lost its significance-Appeal allowed by holding that the civil Court was having jurisdiction.
(B)Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960(18 of 1960)-Sec.30-Lease and rent control-Building-New building-Proof-Admission-Exemption-Eviction-Local authority-Intimation-Admission of a tenant about the factum of new construction dispenses with the proof of intimation of completion of construction to the local authority.
In order to establish without any pale of doubt that the building was newly constructed, it appears that the notification to the local authority concerned was insisted in the aforesaid provision of law. If the tenant admits in no uncertain terms that 5 years period had not lapsed from the date of the construction of the new building, it may not be necessary for the Court to verify as to whether the landlord intimated the local authority concerned as to the completion of construction. Para 14
(C)Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960(18 of 1960)-Sec.30-Lease and rent control-Building-New building-Completion-Local authority-Intimation-Failure-Exemption-Eviction-Civil Court-Jurisdiction-Mere failure of the landlord in informing the local authority about the completion of construction would not deny him the benefit of exemption from the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Further I hold that once the plaintiff could establish with material evidence that the suit was filed within 5 years from the date of completion of the construction just because he failed to notify to the local authority, the plaintiff cannot be shut out from claiming exemption under Section 30(i) of the Act. Notification to the local authority as to the new construction made by the landlord is insisted only to make sure that the exemption is sought for by him in a proven case of new building not older than 5 years from the date of completion of construction. Therefore, when it is admitted by the tenant that the building is less than 5 years old or the plaintiff could establish that the building is a new building less than 5 years old, the Court shall not insist upon proof of notification to the local authority of the completion construction. Para 19
The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below, is the appellant herein.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession from the defendant, who is admittedly the tenant under him.
3. The plaintiff having contended that the defendant, who was the tenant under the vendor of the plaintiff vacated the suit property enabling the plaintiff to put up a new construction and thereafter occupied the suit property on completion of the new construction, as on 14.04.1991 laid the suit for the aforesaid relief, after issuing statutory notice to the defendant to vacate the premises.
4. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that he was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. Having admitted that a new construction was put up by the plaintiff and he was inducted into half of the ground floor measuring 54" feet X 11-1/2" feet under the rent deed dated 14.04.1991, the defendant contended that his established business would be ruined if he vacated from the suit premises.
5. The Trial Court having framed seven issues, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, took up the first issue as to whether the defendant was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the basis of the request emanated from both the parties and decided the same in favour of the defendant.
6. There was no oral evidence let in on either side, but on the side of the plaintiff eight documents were marked before the Trial Court.
7. The Trial Court adverting to the provisions Under Section 30(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 has held that inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to notify to the local authority concerned about the completion of construction of the building, the plaintiff cannot seek exemption from the application of the aforesaid Act.
8. The First Appellate Court having marked two additional documents as Exs.A9 and A10, the sanctioned plan and the tax receipt respectively, confirmed the Judgment of the Trial Court with respect to the preliminary issue framed and answered by the Trial Court.
9. The following substantial question of law was formulated at the time of the admission of the second appeal.
1) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the suit building is not exempted under 30(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, despite the admission of the defendant that the building is constructed in the year 1991, i.e. Within a span of five years, the suit has been filed.
10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that just because the local authority was not notified of the completion of the construction of the building, the exemption granted Under Section 30 (i) cannot be taken away. It is his further submission that in the instant case, the defendant categorically admits that only in the year 1991, a new construction was put up by the plaintiff and immediately thereafter, he was inducted into possession of the property as per the rent deed dated 14.04.1991. The Courts below have failed to take into consideration the admitted position of the parties, he argues.
11. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant would submit that Section 30(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 mandates that the new construction of the building should be notified to the local authority concerned. The period of five years cannot be calculated from the date of completion of the construction unless it was notified to the local authority to seek exemption Under Section 30(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960.
12. Section 30 (i) reads as follows:
30. Exemption in the case of certain buildings-Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to-
[(i) any building for a period of five years from the date on which the construction is completed and notified to the local aut
