Back
2000 Supreme(Mad) 111
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S.S. SUBRAMANI
Central Warehousing Corporation rep. by its Regional Manager
Versus
Indersain Goyal
C.R.P. Nos. 20, 21 & 22 of 2000 & C.M.P. No. 150, 151 & 152 of 2000
Decided On :Decided on: 31-01-2000
AJ. Abdul Razack for Petitioner. P.S. Subramanian for Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the business of an incorporated company cannot be treated as the business of the landlord for the purpose of eviction.
Headnote:
eviction - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 10 - 7, 8, 9 - The court discussed the distinction between a company and partnership, emphasizing that the business of an incorporated company cannot be treated as the business of the landlord. The court set aside the decision of the authorities below and dismissed the eviction petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant, Central Warehousing Corporation, was facing eviction petitions filed by three landlords who claimed that the godowns purchased by them were required for the business of the Company M/s. Tamil Nadu Steel Tubes Limited.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the business of an incorporated company cannot be treated as the business of the landlord, and the principle of partnership applied by the authorities below was incorrect.
Issues: The main issue was whether the business of the incorporated company could be considered as the business of the landlord for the purpose of eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the business of an incorporated company cannot be treated as the business of the landlord, and the principle of partnership applied in ordering eviction was incorrect.
Final Decision: The court set aside the decision of the authorities below and dismissed the eviction petitions, allowing the revision petitions without any order as to costs.
1. All these revision petitions are filed by tenant, i.e., Central Warehousing Corporation, a Government of India Undertaking.
2. Three landlords filed R.C.O.P. 7, 8 and 9 of 1993 for evicting tenant on the following allegations:—
Landlord in R.C.O.P. 7 of 1993 is one Indersain Goyal. Other two eviction petitions were filed by his wife and sister. Reason for eviction is common.
3. Petitioner in R.C.O.P. 7 of 1993, i.e., Indersain Goyal is the Director of M/s. Tamil Nadu Steel Tubes Limited. Petitioner as well as his wife and sister purchased all these godowns, which are subject matter of these revision petitions under three sale deeds which stands in their individual names. It is the case of petitioner in R.C.O.P. 7 of 1993 that he has purchased scheduled premises i.e., Godown No. 9 for the use of the Company M/s. Tamil Nadu Steel Tubes Limited, which according to him is a family concern. In that family concern, he is the Director and substantial investment was made by the family members of the petitioner. It is said that all these godowns are required for the business of the Company since Company requires much volume of raw materials as well as finished products to be stored. Petitioner also informed tenant about the same and it is further case that petitioner also assured landlord that they will vacate the premises without any delay. In respect of various demands, tenant did not vacate and, therefore, eviction petition was filed.
4. In the other two petitions, i.e., R.C.O.P. 8 of 1993 fded by Durga Devi, wife of Indersain Goyal wanted eviction on the ground that the godown No. 5 which she has purchased is also required for the business of the Company. She said that her husband is the Director of the Company and for the use of the Company, Scheduled premises is required.
5. In R.C.O.P. 9 of 1993 filed by Manju Bansal, sister of Indersain Goyal, it was stated that since her brother is Director of Tamil Nadu Steel Tubes Limited, he requires the Godown No. 6 for the bona fide own occupation of the company.
6. For all these eviction petitions, tenant took a common defence. Apart from disputing bona fides of claim, it was said that the applications themselves are not maintainable. It is also found that respondent is dealing with essential commodities and they are not liable to be evicted. I do not want to extract other contentions raised in the counter statement since main argument raised by learned counsel was on the maintainability of the rent control petitions.
7. Rent Controller by separate orders allowed all these applications. It took analogy of partnership and held relying on the decision reported in (1968) 81 L.W. 432 = 1969(1) M.LJ. 184 (Danmull Sowcar v. Syed Ali Mohamed) that landlord can seek eviction even if the building is required for partnership purpose. Even though it is stated that Tamil Nadu Steel Tubes Limited is an incorporated Company, Rent Controller took the view that it is partnership and on that basis applied the principles laid down in the decision cited supra and ordered eviction.
8. When the matter was taken in appeal, Appellate Authority simply copied the order of Rent Controller word by word and sentence by sentence and dismissed the appeal.
9. The concurrent findings of the authorities below are assailed in this revision petition under Section
25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
10. Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act provide the grounds on which eviction could be had. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 says that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this Section or Sections 14 to 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 deals with grounds of eviction of residential and non-residential building. Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) to Section 10 says that landlord may seek eviction if landlord or any members of his family is not occupying for purposes o
