Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. VENUGOPAL
A. Ramesh & Another
Versus
P. Kalyani
C.R.P. (NPD) No.2699 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided On : 08-06-2010
TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT 1960 - SECTION 10(3)(A)(III) - REQUIREMENT OF PREMISES FOR OWN USE - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - LANDLADY'S SON'S BUSINESS - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - REVISION - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The Landlady filed a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 seeking eviction of the Tenants from the non-residential premises on the ground that she required the premises for her son's business. The Landlady's son had completed a course in computer hardware and was working as a Cell Phone Service Engineer. The Landlady had purchased computers and obtained quotations for setting up a Cell Phone Service Centre and DTP Centre in the premises. The Tenants contended that the Landlady's requirement was not bona fide as she had not approached the Court with clean hands, had agreed to continue the tenancy for a further period of two years, and had not utilized the first floor of the premises which was available for occupation. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found that the Landlady had established the ingredients of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Landlady had established her bona fide requirement of the premises for the business to be commenced by her second son and that there was nothing to doubt the bonafide of such claim. The Court noted that the Landlady had taken steps to start the business, such as purchasing computers and obtaining quotations, and that the requirement of the premises was not a device to serve an oblique purpose. The Court also held that the Landlady's inaction in not proceeding further with her claim for own use and occupation after the Tenants agreed to pay an enhanced rent did not disentitle her from making a claim for her son's requirement of the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the Landlady had established the ingredients of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 for eviction of the Tenants from the non-residential premises? 2. Whether the Landlady's requirement of the premises for her son's business was bona fide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. To establish the ingredients of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, the Landlady had to prove that: (i) the premises were non-residential in character; (ii) she was carrying on business on the date of applying for eviction; (iii) she was not occupying any other non-residential building belonging to her for the purpose of her business; (iv) her claim was bona fide for her business needs or any of their family members needs and the claim should not be based on reason like endeavouring to get more rent or to harass te Tenant. 2. In determining whether the Landlady's requirement of the premises for her son's business was bona fide, the Court considered the following factors: (i) the Landlady had taken steps to start the business, such as purchasing computers and obtaining quotations; (ii) the requirement of the premises was not a device to serve an oblique purpose; (iii) the Landlady's inaction in not proceeding further with her claim for own use and occupation after the Tenants agreed to pay an enhanced rent did not disentitle her from making a claim for her son's requirement of the premises.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the Revision Petition and upheld the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The Tenants were granted two months time to hand over the vacant possession of the premises from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
The Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents have projected this Civil Revision Petition as against the Judgment dated 22.07.2009 in R.C.A.No.761 of 2007 passed by the Learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The Learned Appellate Authority viz., the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes while passing orders in R.C.A.No.761 of 2007 has among other things observed that the requirement of the Respondent/Landlady for occupation of her second son is a bonafide one and that she has established the ingredients of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and resultantly, dismissed the Appeal without costs.
3. Dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 22.07.2009 in R.C.A.No.761 of 2007 passed by the Learned Appellate Authority viz., VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the Civil Revision petitioners/Appellants/Tenants have filed this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
4. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Appellants, the Judgment of the Learned Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.761 of 2007 dated 22.07.2009 is against the Law, weight of both oral and documentary evidence and probabilities of the case and further both the Authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondent/Landlady has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as the Eviction Petition filed by the Respondent/Landlady lacks bonafide and the same has been filed with malafide and evil intentions to evict the Revision Petitioners/Tenants by hook and crook.
5. Added further, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that both the Authorities have failed to take note of the fact whether R.C.O.P.No.1991 of 2006 dated 01.11.2007 is maintainable as per Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960.
6. Expatiating his arguments, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submits that the Respondent/Landlady has agreed to continue with the tenancy of the Revision Petitioners for a further period of two years and she has been ready to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding in this regard and therefore, the immediate requirement of the premises for own occupation and the relevant preparation of the Respondent/Landlady in this aspect has been proved as a false and concocted story.
7. On the side of the Revision Petitioners, a plea is taken before this Court that both the Authorities under the Act have overlooked the averments mentioned in the R.C.O.P. Petition filed by the Respondent/Petitioner that she is in possession of the first floor of the petition premises which is alternatively available to her for the intended purpose.
8. It is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that whenever the Respondent/Landlady wanted higher rent she would cause a notice for eviction on the ground of owners occupation and when the rent has been enhanced then she will give up her demand for own use as was done on earlier occasion during the year 1999. In support of the said contention, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submits that both the Authorities have failed to take note of the fact that on 19.07.1999 Ex.P3 Lawyers Notice has been issued to the Revision Petitioners/Tenants requiring them to vacate the petition premises on the ground of own use and occupation of the Respondent/Landlady, but when the rent was increased from Rs.2,310/- per month to Rs.5,000/-per month she has given up her demand for her own use and occupation and this shows that her claim is not a bonafide one.
9. That apart, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contends that P.W.2 does not even note the duration of the course that he has undergone and this creates a doubt in anyones mind as to whether he has done the certain courses alleged by him.
10. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submits that both the Authorities have committed an error in holding that P.W.2 is a qua
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
