Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3927
2011 (5) CTC 591
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
A. Dharmaraj
Versus
Kasturi & Another
CRP(NPD) NoS.2929 and 2930 of 2009
Decided on : 14-09-2011
For the Petitioner: T.V. Ramanujun, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents:P. Gopalan, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of substantial compliance with procedural requirements and held that the findings of the authorities must not be perverse. The court also highlighted the landlord's entitlement to receive fair rent until the tenant vacates the premises.
Headnote:
MAINTAINABILITY: Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Order IV, Rule 21 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules - The court held that the revision petitions were filed in time and were maintainable in law. ON THE MERITS: The court found that the findings of both the authorities on the question of bona fides were perverse. The court concluded that the petitioner had made out a case for the grant of an order of eviction of the respondents from the petition-premises for own use and occupation. The eviction proceedings were initiated in the year 2001. The court allowed the petitions for eviction filed by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed eviction petitions against the respondents seeking their eviction from non-residential buildings on the ground that he required the premises for own use and occupation. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dismissed the eviction petitions, leading the petitioner to file the revisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the findings of both the authorities on the question of bona fides were perverse. The court concluded that the petitioner had made out a case for the grant of an order of eviction of the respondents from the petition-premises for own use and occupation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the revision petitions and the bona fides of the petitioner's requirement for eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revision petitions were filed in time and were maintainable in law. The court found that the findings of both the authorities on the question of bona fides were perverse, and concluded that the petitioner had made out a case for the grant of an order of eviction of the respondents from the petition-premises for own use and occupation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions for eviction filed by the petitioner.
1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the concurrent orders of dismissal of a petition for eviction filed by the landlord.
2. I have heard Mr.T.V.Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in both the revisions and Mr.P.Gopalan, learned counsel for the respondents in both the revisions.
3. The petitioner herein filed RCOP Nos.1508 and 1509 of 2001 against the respondents in these revisions, seeking their eviction from non-residential buildings (shops), on the ground that he required the premises for own use and occupation. By a common order dated 18.7.2003, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petitions. The appeals filed by the petitioner in R.C.A. Nos.1213 and 1214 of 2003 were also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 5.12.2008, forcing the petitioner-landlord to come up with the above revisions.
4. Before getting into the rival contentions on merits, it is necessary to deal with a preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the revisions.
MAINTAINABILITY:
5. The Appellate Authority dismissed RCA Nos.1213 and 1214 of 2003 on 5.12.2008. The petitioner-landlord applied for certified copies of the fair and decretal orders of the Appellate Authority, on 10.12.2008 and they were made ready on 13.7.2009. The revision petitions were filed on 6.8.2009. Therefore, they were in time and there is no doubt with regard to this fact.
6. However, the revision petitions were accompanied only by the certified copies of the fair and decretal orders of the Appellate Authority and not the fair and decretal orders of the Rent Controller. Therefore, the Registry returned the papers on 10.8.2009 for filing the certified copies of the fair and decretal orders of the Rent Controller. The revision papers are claimed to have been re-presented on 31.8.2009 along with the certified copies of the fair and decretal orders. But the date seal of the High Court in CRP(NPD) No.2929 of 2009 shows that the papers in that revision were re-presented on 31.8.2009. The papers in CRP (NPD) No.2930 of 2009 bear the date seal 10.9.2009 only.
7. On the basis of the above dates, it is contended by Mr.P.Gopalan, learned counsel for the respondents that since the revision petitions, as originally filed on 6.8.2009, were not accompanied by the fair and decretal orders of the Rent Controller, as per the requirement of Order IV, Rule 21 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, there was no proper presentation of the revision petitions. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, it is only the date on which the papers were re-presented along with the certified copies of the fair and decretal orders of the Rent Controller, that could be taken to be the date of actual presentation of the revision petitions. If this date is taken to be the date of presentation, the revisions were barred by time. The revision petitions were not even accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the revision petitions are not maintainable.
8. In support of his contention that the requirements of Order IV, Rule 21 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules are mandatory and that the non-compliance of the same would make the revisions not maintainable, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon three decisions, one of the Division Bench and the other two of the learned Single Judges of this Court. They are (i) M.A.Rajarathinam vs. J.Rajammal {1982 (1) MLJ 294}, (ii) K.Alagappan Padayatchi vs. V.Alagappan Padayatchi {1998 (1) LW 183} and (iii) P.Palani vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd {2010 (8) MLJ 673}.
9. In response, Mr.T.V.Ramanujun, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is a self contained Code and the mandate of Section 25, is not strictly similar to the mandate of Order IV, Rule 21 of the High Court Appe
