Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3353
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
Abdul Rasheed & Another
Versus
Muslim Mahadavia Jamath, Committee, Erode rep.by its Secretary Maiyessa Erode
C.R.P.(NPD).No.611 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 31-07-2012
For the Petitioners:V.S. Kesavan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N. Manokaran, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of whether a leased premises qualifies as a 'building' under the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act should be based on clear and specific reasoning, and a lack thereof may warrant interference by the court.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act - Building Definition - 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a) and (b), 10(3)(a)(iii)
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenants based on wilful default, change in user, and owner's use and occupation under the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority ordered eviction, leading to the tenants' appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered whether the leased premises qualified as a building under the Act and found that the decisions of the lower courts were based on a presumption that the demised premises was a 'building' without clear reasoning. The court allowed the revision petition and suggested the landlord file a civil suit for eviction.
Issues: The key issues were whether the leased premises qualified as a building under the Act and if there was perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the decisions of the lower courts lacked specific reasoning for considering the demised premises as a 'building' under the Act, leading to the allowance of the revision petition.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed with no order as to costs.
1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Erode in R.C.A.No.6 of 2007 confirming the order and decree dated 12.04.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Erode in RCOP No.25 of 2005, this revision is focussed by the tenants.
2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller.
3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the germane facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
(i) The respondent/landlord,which is a Muslim Mahadavia Jamath Committee, Erode filed the RCOP No.25 of 2005 seeking eviction of the revision petitioners/tenants on the ground of wilful default, change in user and also on the ground of owner's use and occupation by invoking Sections, 10(2) (i), 10(2) (ii) (a) and (b) and 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act" in short).
(ii) The tenants resisted the RCOP by filing counter.
(iii) During enquiry, on the side of the the respondent/landlord P.W.s.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On the side of the revision petitioners/tenants, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked.
(iv) Ultimately, the Rent controller ordered eviction on all the grounds.
(v) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the tenants preferred appeal before the appellate forum for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate authority confirming the judgment and decree of the Rent Controller.
(vi) Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees passed by both the authorities below, this revision has been preferred by the tenants on various grounds.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants placing reliance on the grounds of revision would pilot his argument, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
The landlord leased out only a vacant site so as to enable the tenants to raise superstructure and carry on with the Semiya factory. In such a case, the matter could not have been brought within the four corners of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Without considering this crucial aspect, both the courts below decided the lis warranting interference in this revision.
6. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioners/tenants, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would advance his argument, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:
The courts below taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter appropriately and appositely held that the matter squarely comes within the ambit of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in view of the fact that the landlord authorised the tenant to raise superstructure having support of the compound walls put up by the landlord and as such, no interference with the reasoned order passed by both the courts below is warranted.
7. The point for consideration is as to whether the premises leased out was a building within the definition of Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act?
2.) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the orders passed by both the courts below?
8. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord produced voluminous precedents on his side in order to buttress and fortify his contention that what was leased out by the landlord in favour of the tenants could rightly be taken as 'building' within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
9. It is therefore just and proper to refer to those decisions:
1.) 2000 (5) SCC 646 [Kamala Devi vs. Lakshmi Devi]. Certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"11.) When, in any case, the
