Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3052
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
Souriammal
Versus
R. Ramesh
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1285 of 2007
Decided On :Decided On : 27-07-2010
For the Petitioner:Hema Sampath, Sr. counsel for S. Venkateswaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Velumani, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the landlady to prove the bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, and the importance of considering the relative hardship and benefit to the landlord and tenant in eviction cases.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 10(3)(a)(iii), Section 10(3)(c) - 1997(III) CTC 339, 2006(1) CTC 333, 1998 MADRAS LAW JOURNAL (SUPP) 18, 1995(II) CTC 452, 2001) 8 SUPREME COURT CASES 110, 2007( 3) CTC 152 - The court discussed the inconsistency in evidence, the requirement of premises for the landlady's sons' business, and the hardship to the tenant. The court emphasized the need for the landlady to prove the bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. The court also highlighted the interpretation of 'carrying on business' and the importance of considering the relative hardship and benefit to the landlord and tenant in eviction cases.
Fact of the Case:
The landlady filed for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, claiming the demised premises was required for her sons' jewellery business. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the appellate Court reversed the decision. The landlady challenged the appellate Court's judgment, citing inconsistencies in the evidence and the bona fide intention to seek eviction. The tenant argued against the landlady's claim, pointing out inconsistencies in her evidence and alleging mala fide intention.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the landlady had the bona fide intention to seek eviction for her sons' business and that the appellate Court erred in focusing on inconsistencies in the evidence. The Court emphasized the need for the landlady to prove the bona fide requirement for eviction and the importance of considering the relative hardship and benefit to the landlord and tenant in eviction cases.
Issues: The issues revolved around the landlady's bona fide intention to seek eviction for her sons' business, the inconsistencies in the evidence, and the relative hardship and benefit to the landlord and tenant in eviction cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of 'carrying on business' under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 10(3)(c) of the Act, the need for the landlady to prove the bona fide requirement for eviction, and the importance of considering the relative hardship and benefit to the landlord and tenant in eviction cases.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the appellate Court's judgment and restored the Rent Controller's order for eviction, granting the tenant six months to vacate the premises.
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 8.2.2007 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority(VII Small Causes Court) Chennai, in R.C.A.No.600 of 1999 reversing the judgement and decree dated 28.7.1999 passed by the Rent Controller-XII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.149 of 1996, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:
(i) The revision petitioner herein/landlady filed the RCOP invoking Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking eviction of the original deceased tenant on the ground that the demised premises was required for the occupation of her sons to carry on their jewellery business. The matter was contested by the original defendant.
(ii) On the side of the revision petitioner/landlady her husband Aruldoss was examined as P.W.1 along with her son Antony as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the tenant, he examined himself as R.W.1 and no document was marked.
(iii) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction.
(iv) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the appeal in R.C.A.No.600 of 1999 was filed by the original tenant.
(v) After hearing both sides, the appellate Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the RCOP.
3. Challenging and impugning the judgement of the appellate Court, the landlady filed this revision on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:
(a) The appellate Court without considering properly the oral and documentary evidence in this case simply set aside the order of the Rent Controller.
(b) The appellate Court failed to take into consideration Ex.P6-the letter from the Commercial Tax Department, which would reveal that the petitioner/landladys husband has been carrying on business in the rented premises continuously for several years.
(c) The appellate Court was very much carried away by Ex.P5-the unregistered partnership deed, which emerged among the sons of the landlady and certainly such registration or otherwise of the partnership firm is having nothing to do with the genuineness of the case of the landlady.
(d) The appellate Court erred in holding that no evidence was adduced to show that the petitioners husband was ordered to be evicted from the tenanted premises.
(e) The admissions made by R.W.1-the original tenant was not taken into consideration. In fact, R.W.1 himself admitted that eviction order was passed as against the landladys husband from the demised premises at No.115 Triplicane High Road, Chennai.
(f) The lower appellate Court also wrongly assumed as though Exs.P3-the Registration certificate and P5-the un-registered partnership deed, were created for the purpose of this case.
(g) Non production of the account book and the ledger book relating to Kavitha Jewellery was taken seriously by the appellate Court.
(h) Ex.P6 reveals that the business was carried on by the petitioners sons. As such, the appellate authority, without properly addressing himself to the facts simply reversed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, warranting interference by this Court in this revision.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner/landlady reiterating the grounds of revision would put forth and set forth her arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: (i) The fact remains that the landlady does not possess any property of her own within the city of Madras other than the building in which the demised premises is situated and before the Rent Controller the tenant did not plead that the premises bearing Door No.116, Triplicane High Road, was owned by the landladys husband. (ii) The tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlady that the demised premises would not be suitable for her sons to conduct jewellery business. (iii) The bona fide intention on the part of the landlady
