Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 3493
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
T.K.V.S.L. Mahadevan
Versus
Lathif Moosa
CRP(PD)No.1164 of 2003
Decided On :Decided on : 02-09-2009
For the Petitioner:R. Subramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M. Vaidyalingam, Advocate.
The main legal point established is the interpretation of wilful default and the bona fide requirement of the landlord for occupation under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Eviction - Section 8, Section 10(3)(a)(iii) - [WILFUL DEFAULT, OWNERS OCCUPATION] - [Section 8, Section 10(3)(a)(iii)] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 8 of the Act regarding wilful default in paying rent and the requirements for eviction for owners occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii). The court highlighted the interpretation of wilful default and the bona fide requirement of the landlord for occupation of the premises for family members.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default in paying rent and owners occupation for his sons' business. The tenant resisted eviction by claiming non-wilful default due to rent deposit and disputed the bona fide requirement of the landlord for his sons' business.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant did not commit wilful default and that the landlord's requirement for his sons' business was bona fide, granting relief of eviction in favor of the landlord.
Issues: The issues involved wilful default in rent payment, compliance with legal requirements for rent deposit, and the bona fide requirement of the landlord for his sons' business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the interpretation of wilful default under Section 8 and the bona fide requirement of the landlord for occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower authority's order and granted relief of eviction in favor of the landlord for owners occupation, giving the tenant two months to vacate the premises.
The landlord is the revision petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition has arisen out of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ((herein after referred to as the Act) for eviction of the respondent/tenant from the property belonging to the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in paying the rent and owners occupation for his sons to carry on their business.
2. The tenancy is non residential and the monthly rent is Rs.1300/-. The respondent is carrying on textile business in the petition mentioned premises. The property is measuring of an extent of 200 sq.ft. in the north eastern corner of the premises in Door No.152, South Masi Street, Madurai. The Rent Controller by order dated 31.10.2001 dismissed the eviction petition in RCOP.No.339/1996 and the same was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated 18.12.2002 in RCA.No.84/2001, which is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition by the landlord.
3. The eviction was resisted by the respondent/tenant on the ground that since the petitioner/landlord refused to receive the rent from December 1992, the respondent filed RCOP.No.147/1993 for deposit of rent and the respondent has been depositing the rent and hence, there is no wilful default.
4. Mr.R.Subramanian, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the respondent has been depositing the rent in RCOP.No.147/1993, but inasmuch as the provision under Section 8 of the Act not being strictly complied with by the respondent, mere deposit of rent cannot cure the wilful default and in order to support his contention, he relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of E.Palanisamy Vs. Palanisamy (D) by LRs and others [2002-4-CTC-572], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that mere refusal of the landlord to receive the rent cannot justify the action of the tenant in straightaway invoking Section 8
(5) of the Act without following the procedure contained in earlier sub sections.
5. In the instant case, both the court below have held that the respondent has complied with the legal requirements as provided under sub sections 2 to 4 of Section 8 of the Act before depositing the rent before the Rent Controller in RCOP.No.147/1993 and therefore, there is no wilful default. The said finding is justified by the evidence placed on record and therefore, as regards this ground, the findings of the court below are not liable to be interfered with and the same is confirmed.
6. The petitioner has two sons, who are carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Ganapathy Film Distributors in a rented building at Door No.24, Hanumantharayan Street, East Madurai. The petitioner bona fidely required the building in occupation of the respondent for the business of his sons and they are not owning any non residential building of their own. Though the Rent Control Appellate Authority has accepted the petitioner case that his sons are carrying on business in a rental building, which is also evident from Exs. A3 t A14, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the petition solely on the ground that an extent of 500 sq.ft which was in possession of one Meyyappan another tenant, who vacated and handed over possession of the same to the petitioner, is sufficient for his sons business and they cannot carry on the business in the petition mentioned premises, which is less than 500 sq.ft.
7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has accepted the contention of the petitioner that after obtaining vacant possession of another portion from another tenant Meyyappan, the petitioner effected repairs and is using the same as an additional accommodation for his family. The relevant portion from the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is extracted below:-
Tamil However, ignoring the said admission, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has held that no evidence was adduc
