Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 605
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAGADEESAN
S. Devan
Versus
N. Palaniappan (Landlord)
C.R.P. Nos. 1326 to 1328 of 1996
Decided On :Decided On : 20-06-1996
For the Petitioner:R. Thyagarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K. Ravichandra Babu, Advocate.
The requirement of the landlord under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act can be made only if the landlord is carrying on the business.
Headnote:
EVICTION - OWNERS OCCUPATION - SECTION 10(3)(A)(III) OF THE TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT - MAINTAINABILITY - REQUIREMENT OF LANDLORD BONA FIDE - ENMITY BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT - REASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE IN REVISION - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed eviction petitions under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, claiming that the building was required for his sons' business. The tenants contended that the petitions were not maintainable under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and should have been filed under Section 10(3)(c) for additional accommodation. They also alleged that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide and that the petitions were filed due to enmity between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found that the petitions were maintainable under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and that the landlord's requirement was bona fide. They dismissed the tenants' appeals.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitions were maintainable under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act or should have been filed under Section 10(3)(c). 2. Whether the landlord's requirement for owners occupation was bona fide. 3. Whether the petitions were filed due to enmity between the landlord and the tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitions were maintainable under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, as the landlord was occupying only a part of the building and the tenants were occupying the remaining part. The Court distinguished the case from those cited by the tenants, where the landlord and the tenant were occupying different buildings. 2. The Court found that the landlord's requirement for owners occupation was bona fide, as he wanted to settle his sons separately by dividing the joint family business. The Court noted that the landlord was carrying on the business and that his intention to settle his sons was in the interest of the family. 3. The Court found that there was no evidence to support the tenants' allegation that the petitions were filed due to enmity between the parties. The Court noted that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had considered the tenants' plea and found that there was no oblique motive for the landlord to file the petitions.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the tenants' revision petitions and upheld the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
1. The respondent is the landlord. He has filed R.C.O.P. Nos. 5 to 7 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tambaram for eviction of the tenants on the ground that the building is required for owners occupation, i.e., the building is required for the business of the respondents sons. So far as the R.C.O.P. No. 6/93 is concerned, the additional ground for eviction is that the tenant had sub-leased the premises.
2. The petitioners herein filed counter contending that the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) for owners occupation is not maintainable and only petition under Section 10(3)(c) for additional accommodation is maintainable. Further, they contended that there is no bona fide in the requirement of the landlord for owners occupation since the respondents sons are not carrying on any business. The petitions had been filed due to the strained relationship, as the petitioners had filed certain criminal cases against the respondent.
3. The Rent Controller had carefully considered all the points raised by the tenants and found that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is maintainable and ultimately allowed all the R.C.O.Ps., by order dated 29.6.1994. So far as R.C.O.P. No. 6/93 is concerned, the additional ground of sub-lease had been found against the landlord.
4. The petitioners herein filed appeal in R.C.A. Nos. 24 to 26 of 1994 before the Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Poonamallee. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeals by his judgment dated 27.10.1995. The Petitioners have filed the present revisions against the eviction ordered by both the authorities.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the authorities below have totally failed to consider the contradictions in the evidence and also the contradiction with regard to the requirement stated in the notice and in the R.C.O.Ps. He further contended that the petitioners are tenants in respect of three shops in the building which is having five shops lying contiguously in a row. If that be so, it should be considered as one building as oneness of the building is to be taken into consideration and not oneness of the ownership. He further contended that the Appellate Authority has totally failed to consider the enmity pleaded by the petitioners in filing the petitions by the landlord.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Authority would clearly reveal that these points have been raised before that forum. The Appellate Authority had elaborately discussed the matter and also referred to the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners by their counsel and found that the petition under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) is maintainable and there is no need for the respondent to file an application under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to point out any error in the finding of the Appellate Authority on this issue except that once again he cited the same authorities before me. I do not find any error in the finding of both the authorities below with regard to the maintainability of the R.C.O.Ps. under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. There is no need to discuss elaborately the judgments referred to by the counsel for the petitioners, since the judgments have been considered by the Appellate Authority. But any how I refer to two judgments in order to explain the position. The Counsel referred to the Judgment reported in Childrens Choice v. Adiseshiah (1982 I M.L.J. 411). It is the case the landlord filed eviction petition to evict the tenants in respect of two shops wherein two different door numbers, though they are in the same building. The petition was filed under Section 10 (3)(c) of the Act. The con
