Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ARUMUGHAM
T. Poongothai
Versus
Zamurth Bibi & Others
CRP. No. 761 of 1991
Decided On :Decided on : 05-07-1995
EVICTION - SECTION 10(3)(A)(III) AND 10(3)(C) OF THE TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT - REQUIREMENT OF PREMISES FOR OWN USE AND OCCUPATION - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - JUDICIAL NOTICE - BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT - HARDSHIP TO TENANT - DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTION 10(3)(A)(I) AND SECTION 10(3)(C) - APPLICABILITY TO BUILDING CONSISTING OF TWO FLOORS.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant of a non-residential building filed a revision petition challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenant contended that the requirement of the premises by the landlords was not genuine and bonafide, and that the landlords had obtained subsequent events which could be taken judicial notice of by the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the landlords were the mother and sons, among whom the respondents 2 and 3 were employed elsewhere and the respondents 4 and 5 were without any job, but, however helping their mother by having six sewing machines in the rear portion of the said building and thereby manufacuring pettycoats and other readymade garments under the name and style, ‘Lovely dresses’. It was thus seen that the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts were purely on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents which reveals clearly that by residing in the rear portion of the said building, the respondents are engaged in manufacturing ready-made garments by obtaining loans from banking institutions and doing the business therein.
Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of the premises by the landlords was genuine and bonafide? 2. Whether the subsequent events could be taken judicial notice of by the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the requirement of the premises by the landlords was genuine and bonafide, as they were engaged in manufacturing ready-made garments in a portion of the building in which they were also residing. The Court also found that the landlords had obtained loans from banking institutions and other financiers to construct the building and to purchase machinery for their business. 2. The Court held that the subsequent events, even if they were taken as true, could not have any interaction between the bonafide requirement of the respondents/landlords and the tenant and therefore, for the reasonings above referred, it is decided as having become out of point now.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
1. The unsuccessful tenant before the learned Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1990 by its order dated 4-2-1991, confirming the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Coimbatore in R.C.O.P. No. 354 of 1986 dated 16-11-1989, is the Revision Petitioner herein, canvassing the impugned order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority for want of its legality, propriety and correctness.
2. The non-residential premises bearing Door Nos. 67, 68 situate in Variety Hall Road, Coimbatore Town is being owned by respondents herein who are the mother and son, living as one family in the rear side of the same, and among them, respondents 4 and 5 are jobless, but, however, manufacturing ready-made petty coats and dresses by engaging more than six sewing machines therein. Besides the said buildings in question, they do not own any other building anywhere in the town at any point of time. The said b uilding consists of upstairs portion. In the ground floor, in the front side, facing the Main Road, there are number of tenants in occupation for their commercial purposes. As such, in the ground floor, in the front side of the said building, a portion consisting of 16 12? feet was let out to the tenant who is the Revision petitioner herein for a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-for a period of 5 years with an advance of Rs. 20,000/-. Out of the said advance amount, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was adjusted towards the rent and the balance of Rs. 10,000/- remains with the respondents herein. Besides, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid to them subsequently on 25-2-1984 and thus, a total sum of Rs. 15,000/- is still in the hands of the respondents herein. The 2nd respondent is employed in Railways and the 3rd respondent is working as Assistant in a concern which manufactures readymade garments known as ‘Best Shop’.
3. Since the respondents 1 and 4 are without any job, engaged in manufacturing pettycoats and other readymade garments by engaging six sewing machines in their residential portion situate in the rear side of the building in question and since they do not own any other building in the said town, they require the rental premises now in the occupation of the tenant, the Revision Petitioner herein, for their own use and occupation. Their requirement according to them is bonafide and as their demand made to the tenant/Revision Petitioner, to vacate and hand over the possession has not since been complied with, petition for an order of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Bent Control) Act was filed.
4. The claim of the petitioners/landlords was resisted by the first respondent, the Revision petitioner herein by filing a counter statement in which it was contended inter-alia that the premises was rented out for a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- for non-residential purposes, and there was an advance of Rs. 15,000/- paid in all by the tenant. A further contention was made that the Revision Petitioner has paid huge amount for the purpose of constructing the building, that therefore, there was an agreement for a period of 25 years and the respondents agreed not to interfere or ask for eviction of the rental premises within that period and so, before, the expiry of the said period, demanding her to vacate is a contradiction to the agreement and the rental agreement contains the period for its enforceability and it was agreed therein that the said period was to be extended and that rental agreement was dated 9-2-1981. It was also contended that besides the advance made, the landlords obtained further sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of loan agreed to be repaid with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum and that amount has been repaid as evident from the receipts convered under Exhibits P-8 to P. 27. The other documentary evidence shows that besides the loan amount above referred to, the landlords viz., the respondents herein had availed loans from other sources also. It was further contended that th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
