Back
1990 Supreme(Mad) 735
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NAINAR SUNDARAM & THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SOMASUNDARAM
P.C. Cherian, President, Academic-Cum-Arts School, Madras
Versus
The Special Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Home (AC-I) Department, Madras
Writ Appeal No.834 of 1990
Decided On :Decided on : 03-09-1990
For the Appellant:Mr. G. Subramaniam, M/s P.B. Ramanujan & W.C. Sridhar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. K. Raviraja Pandian, Addl. Government Pleader (Writs), Mr. P.K. Sivasubramaniam, Advocates.
The court emphasized that if the remedy under the Act is not available to the landlord for eviction for residential purposes of a non-residential premises, there is justification for according exemption under S. 29.
Headnote:
Exemption - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 - The court upheld the exemption granted to the respondents under S. 29 of the Act, emphasizing that if the remedy under the Act is not available to the landlord for eviction for residential purposes of a non-residential premises, there is justification for according exemption under S. 29.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the exemption granted to the respondents under S. 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as the landlords required the premises for residential purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the exemption, stating that if the remedy under the Act is not available to the landlord for eviction for residential purposes of a non-residential premises, there is justification for according exemption under S. 29.
Issues: The issue revolved around the applicability of exemption under S. 29 of the Act when the landlords require the premises for residential purposes and the Act's provisions are not available to them for eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if the remedy under the Act is not available to the landlord for eviction for residential purposes of a non-residential premises, there is justification for according exemption under S. 29.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the exemption granted to the respondents under S. 29 of the Act.
NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.
1. The learned Single Judge upheld the exemption granted in favour of respondents 4 to 13 under S. 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as The Act). This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge.
2. Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that on the ground that the landlords could not invoke the provisions of the Act, there could not be an exercise of power of exemption under S 29 of the Act. The premises in question has been let out for nonresidential purposes. The landlords require the premises for residential purposes. It is well settled that the remedy of exemption under S. 29 of the Act is not a substitute for remedies available to a landlord for evictio n under the Act itself. But on the other hand, if the remedy under the Act is not at all available to him, there will be a justification for according exemption under S. 29 of the Act if a case therefor is made out—vide the pronouncement of a Bench of this Court in P.N. Raju Chettiar v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary, Home Department (Accomodation Controller) and others 1 ,. The pronouncements of this Court have not countenanced the possibility of a remedy for eviction under the Act for the requirement of the landlord for residential purposes of a premises demised for non-residential purposes. It would be a different matter if the premses is both residential and non-residential or predominantly residential. Such is not the position here. In the Bench decision referred to above, this aspect has been adverted to and finding that the provisions of the Act could not be of any help to the landlord, the exemption accorded was upheld. We are not persuaded to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
