Back
2001 Supreme(Mad) 311
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM
P. Balambal
Versus
Maj. Gen. L.K. Moorthy (Retd.) and another
C.R.P.No.1355 of 2000 and C.M.P.No.7771 of 2000
Decided on: 12-03-2001
Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. G. Anbumani, Advocate for Respondent.
The case established the importance of considering the bona fides of a landlord's claim for eviction under rent control laws, particularly in the context of special provisions for retired members of the armed forces.
Headnote:
Eviction - Rent Control - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Section 10(3A)(a)(i)(ii) and (b)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the eviction of tenants from a rented premises in Chennai. The landlords, retired Army officers, sought eviction for their personal occupation under Section 10(3-A)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Authority found the landlords' claim for eviction to be bona fide, overturning the Rent Controller's decision. The court held that the landlords' desire to settle in their native town after retirement was genuine and that the claim of the landlords was bona fide.
Issues: The main issues included the applicability of Section 10(3)(a) and the requirement of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c), as well as the bona fides of the landlords' claim for personal occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the special provisions under Section 10(3-A) of the Act provided a special remedy for retired members of the armed forces, and the landlords had complied with the requirements of the provision. The court also noted that old age and retirement often result in a change in the pattern of life and the necessity to live in smaller accommodation.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the finding of the Appellate Authority was upheld.
1. This revision is directed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai in RCA No.650 of 1996, reversing the order and decree dated 19.9.1995 made in RCOP No.2040 of 1991 on the file of the Rent Controller, Chennai. The tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court.
2. The respondents filed RCOP No.2040 of 1991 under Section 10(3A)(a)(i)(ii) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
3. According to the petitioners in RCOP (hereinafter called Landlord), the mother of the respondent Smt. Parvathy Ammal had been rented out the ground floor portion (except one room) of the premises at No.21, Sate Colony, Second Street, Egmore, Chennai by Narayani Ammal and the lease agreement dated 1.2.1986 was valid upto 31.12.1986. The respondents with their mother (herein after called the tenant), were in occupation of the ground floor of the house, except one room, which the landlord"s mother had retained for storing household goods belonging to herself and their sons. The tenant's mother had been rented out the said portion for a sum of Rs.800 per month. The tenant's mother Parvathy Ammal expired on 12.4.1991 and the tenants continue to be in occupation being the legal representatives of Parvathy Ammal.
4. Narayani Ammal, the mother of the landlord suffered heart attack and was advised not to stay in the upstairs, since it could be detrimental to her health. Further, the lease agreement having come to an end on 31.12.1986, the landlord's mother requested the tenant's mother to vacate the premises, but she failed to comply with the request of Narayani Ammal. Narayani Ammal therefore, filed RCOP No.3217 of 1989 before the Court of Small Causes, Madras for eviction of the tenant's mother on the ground that the portion was required for her own use in the light of medical advise. While, the rent control proceedings were pending, the tenants mother in order to prevent the landlord and their mother form using the room in the ground floor filed O.S.No. 10439 of 1989 for permanent injunction. The injunction suit was still pending and however, an interim relief as prayed for was not granted.
5. The landlord submitted that on 21.10.90 during the pendency of the said proceedings, the landlord's mother Narayani Ammal died leaving behind a Will dated 15.7.1983 bequeathing the land and building to her three children, (1) Mrs. Valli Narayanan, wife of late G. Narayanan, (2) Maj. Gen. L.K. Moorthy and (3) Admiral L. Ramdoss, the landlords herein. In the Will, she had specifically directed that Mrs. Valli Narayanan should be permitted to occupy the first floor till her death and her possession should not be disturbed. Therefore, the petitioners are now left with only the ground floor for their occupation. Since RCOP No.3217 of 1989 was filed by Narayani Ammal for her personal use, the landlord have withdrawn the said RCOP. The tenant's mother Parvathy Ammal having expired on 12.4.1991, the landlords are filing this petition against the legal representatives of late Parvathy Ammal, who are in occupation of the said premises.
6. It is further contended that the first petitioner was a retired Army Officer having served for the country and special war conditions as prescribed under Section 10(3-A)(b) of the said Act and the certificate was appended as annexure-1. The first petitioner, who lived in the second floor apartment in Pune and was a heart patient, who has been advised by Doctors to shift to a more convenient ground floor apartment. Further, the apartment in Pune, though in the name of the first petitioner was actually being used by his son, who was employed in Pune. The house at Pune was even otherwise not adequate to meet the requirements of both the first petitioner and his son. In any case, due to the medical reasons, the first petitioner desires to shift to the ground floor of his parental house at Madras. He intends to settle down at Madras. The first floor is in the occupation
