1996 Supreme(Mad) 180
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
K. Ramadoss
Versus
S. Vaidyanathasamy & Another
C.R.P. No. 2731 of 1990
Decided On :Decided On : 13-02-1996
For the Petitioner:K.V. Venkatapathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:T.R. Mani, Senior Counsel for T.M. Hariharan, Advocate.
The legal representatives of the landlord can continue the eviction proceeding and get the benefit of the eviction order under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - EVICTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - DEATH OF LANDLORD - SURVIVAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES CAN CONTINUE THE PROCEEDING AND GET THE BENEFIT OF ORDER OF EVICTION - TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1960, S. 27.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant filed a revision petition challenging the eviction order passed by the Authorities below on the ground that the landlord died during the pendency of the revision petition and the cause of action did not survive.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the legal representatives of the landlord can continue the proceeding and get the benefit of the eviction order under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Issues: Whether the cause of action survives after the death of the landlord and whether the legal representatives can continue the proceeding and get the benefit of the eviction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which provides that any application, appeal, or proceeding taken under the Act by or against any person may, in the event of his death, be continued by or against his legal representatives.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the eviction order passed by the Authorities below.
1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 51 of 1986, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsifs Court), Vellore, is the revision petitioner. After revision was filed, landlord (respondent) died, and his legal representative has been impleaded as additional respondent.
2. Landlord sought eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground that the demised premises is required by him bona fide for his own occupation. It is a non-residential building. Landlord wanted the same for his own use, namely, for conducting a hotel business. It has come out in evidence that the landlord is running hotel business, and his son (second respondent herein) is also associated in the business.
3. Both the Authorities below held that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and ordered eviction. They were satisfied that the claim by the landlord was not a pretext for eviction.
4. In Revision, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would urge that after the death of the landlord, it cannot be said that the cause of action survives and, therefore, according to him, eviction ordered by the Authorities below cannot stand. According to the learned counsel, when the landlord says that he wants to start a business, the question whether the son or his legal representative also had the same intention, is a matter which gives out a different cause of action and, therefore, the present action cannot continue. He also wanted that the findings of the Authorities below should be set aside, taking into consideration the subsequent event.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord disputed the said legal position and said that under the relevant provisions of the Rent Control Act, a legal representative can continue the proceeding and get the benefit of order of eviction.
6. S. 27 of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act says thus:
“27. Proceedings by or against legal representatives — (1) Any applications made, appeal preferred, or proceeding taken, under this Act by or against any person, may in the event of his death, be continued by or against his legal representatives.
2. Where any application, appeal or other proceeding could have been made, preferred or taken, under this Act by or against any person, such application, appeal or other proceeding may, in the event of his death, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives.”
7. In view of the statutory provision, proceedings already taken could be continued by the legal representatives, and the wordings are also so clear that the benefit of the eviction also goes to the legal representative.
8. In this connection, it may also be noted that before this Act namely, Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was passed, there was Madras House Rent Control Order, 1945. In that order, there was no similar provision, and in those circumstances, there was a decision of this Court reported in 1947-II-M.L.J. 419 = 60-L.W. 713 ( Dr. Muhammed Ibrahim v. Rahiman Khan and others ) that the legal representative cannot continue the proceeding initiated by his purchaser. Similar question came for consideration before this Court and the decision rendered thereon has been reported in 1972-II M.L.J. 21 (Short Notes) ( Salima Bi v. Mallika Begam ). That was a case where the landlords (Joint Owners) prayed for eviction of the tenant on the, ground of their bona fide requirement for their personal occupation. It was held that the death of one will not affect the continuance of the petition by the other owner.
9. In this connection, it may also be noted that when the landlord was alive, he filed C.M.P. No. 5017 of 1991 to have the Revision disposed of at an early date. Unfortunately, the Revision could not be taken before his death. In that affidavit, in paragraph 2, he has stated thus:—
“.I respectfully beg to submit that catering has been my profession ever since 1944 and I am running two catering units in Katpadi Railway Junction of Southern Railway and I am also supplying fo