The Chief Justice.-Under section 7(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession(1) in the case of a residential building, if he requires it for his own occupation and if he is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned.

The Act does not contain a definition of a residential building. There is, however, a definition of “building”. “Building” means,

“any building or hut or part of building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residental purposes.”

The only question in this case is whether the building which is the subject-matter of the application is a residential or a non-residential building. The findings which are material for a determination of this question are as follows: For several years the building was being used for the residence of the petitioner and P.W. 2. Then, it was let to a tenant who was carrying on business in Chappalas and thereafter to the present tenant for his business in hides and skins. Structurally the building appears to have been meant for residence rather than for carrying on business. The locality in which the building is situate is predominantly a business locality.

If the sole test for determining whether a building is residential or not is the purpose for which the building was let to the tenant in occupation at the time of the application for eviction, then, undoubtedly, the building is a non-residential building. But the appellate tribunal in this case, the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, has held that as it was once used for residential purposes and was structurally such that it must have been intended for residence, mere user for a number of years as a non-residential building would not make it non-residential and therefore it must be deemed to be a residential building. In coming to this conclusion he was largely influenced by the observations made by this Court in a decision to which I was’ a party in C.M.P. No. 6150 of 1948. In that case the building was actually being used as a restaurant at the time of the application for eviction, but, by its nature and by its structure it was a residential building. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate tribunal held that it was a residential building. In view of the fact that by its nature and structure the building was residential in character it was held, that the appellate tribunal was justified in its finding. I went on to say:

“If by reason of the original character it was residential, the fact that for sometimes-may be even for a long time - it was being used for purposes other than residence, would by itself not make the building non-residential.”

Reliance was placed on section 11(1) of the Act, but we were inclined to hold that what was contemplated by that section was structural alteration which converted a residential building into a non-residential building.

Since that decision I have come across other cases in which conflicting considerations have placed me often in a state of uncertainty as to the meaning to be given, to a “residential building” in section 7(3). If the definition of ‘building’ gives a clue, then, a residential building is a building let or to be let for residential purposes. That furnishes no doubt a simple test which has also the merit of reasonable certainty. But I have found it difficult to adopt that test in the case of a building which, for instance, might be the family house of the owner in which he and his predecessors had been residing for years and therefore was at one time a residential building which, however, has been let for business purposes at the material period. The question will then arise whether there has been a conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building. I was at one time inclined to think that the conversion contemplated was by means of a structural alteration. But my attention has be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document