The structural characteristics of a building, rather than its usage or purpose, determine whether it is residential or non-residential for the purposes of eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. A petition for eviction was filed against him on the ground of owners occupation. The lower court dismissed the said petition. The appellate court allowed the said petition and ordered eviction. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. The main point urged before me by learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that admittedly, the respondent is carrying on business in the petition premises and the respondent seeks eviction for owners occupation to accommodate his son for his residential purposes. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition for eviction is not maintainable under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In this connection, he relied upon the decision of this Court in Lakshmanan v. Hajee Alavudeen Saheb Sons (1980-1-MLJ 9), wherein this Court has held that since the premises in question was a non-residential premises and since the claim of the landlord was for residential purposes, the landlord was not entitled to evict the tenant. He also relied upon the dictum laid down by this Court in Padmavathy Ammal v. Manickam (1981 I MLJ 359), which runs as follows:

“The only hurdle the landlady faced in this case was that the premises having been let out for non residential purposes, she cannot disturb such a tenancy, till it comes to an end, and the tenant having acquired statutory rights to resist the recovery of possession in of the property, unless it be for non residential purposes. It is only if the landlady requires it for non-residential purposes she can maintain this petition. In this case, though the claim is not for additional accommodation but is a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default, in view of the conversion of the building and user for different purposes and for personal occupation, and the absence of provision for enabling the landlord to ask for recovery of possession for residential purposes of a premises having let it out for non residential purposes, the present petition is not maintainable.”

It is no doubt true that the view earlier taken by this Court was that the landlady cannot ask a residential premises for non-residential purposes. But this view underwent a change, as could be from the decision of this Court in Indira v. Vinayagam Chettiar (1989 I MLJ 186), wherein it has been held as follows:

“On a reading of sub clauses (i) to (iii) of S. 10(3)(a), it is important to notice that the building which is the subject matter of those clauses is referred to either as residential building or non-residential building. The clauses do not refer to a building used for non-residential purpose or residential purpose. The use of the adjective ‘residential’ or ‘non-residential’ qualifying the word ‘building’ therefore clearly indicates that what is important is the nature of the building and not the use to which it is put. This construction is supported by the restriction on the power of the landlord or the tenant to convert a residential building into a non-residential building imposed by S. 21. The conversion referred to has reference to the nature and character of the building as such. When the three sub clauses of S. 10(3)(a) refer to the building being residential or non-residential the reference is obviously to the nature and structural characteristics of the building as such. If a residential building is used for non-residential purpose, it cannot be said to be a non-residential building within the meaning of sub-clause (iii). A building which by its nature is non-residential in character will not become residential merely because it is used for residential purposes unless it has been so converted to facilitate its use for residential purpose. Whether a building is non-residential building or not will, therefore, have to be determined on the structural characteristics of the building and the purpose for which it is constructed. There is a statutory ba