Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2995
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
Gopaldas & Others
Versus
Y.J. Shamshudeen & Others
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.897 & 922 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided on : 16-07-2012
For the Petitioners:P. Haridas, Sr. Counsel for K. Shakespeare, R. Ananda Babu, Advocates.
For the Respondents:S. Vasudevan, Advocate.
Headnote:
The Court held that the lease was for a period of thirty years and not sixty years, and that the lease did not qualify as a composite lease attracting the exemption under Section 30(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Court also held that the non-impleadment of the sub-tenants was not fatal to the RCOP, and that the partners of the partnership firm cited as respondents in the RCOP could be treated as partners of the partnership firm cited eonomine. The Court found no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below and dismissed both the revisions.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed an RCOP seeking demolition and reconstruction of the demised premises. The petitioners, who were the tenants in the RCOP, resisted the petition on various grounds, including that the lease was for a period of sixty years and not thirty years, that the lease was a composite lease attracting the exemption under Section 30(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, that the non-impleadment of the sub-tenants was fatal to the RCOP, and that the partnership firm cited as a respondent in the RCOP was not properly constituted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the lease was for a period of thirty years and not sixty years, and that the lease did not qualify as a composite lease attracting the exemption under Section 30(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Court also held that the non-impleadment of the sub-tenants was not fatal to the RCOP, and that the partners of the partnership firm cited as respondents in the RCOP could be treated as partners of the partnership firm cited eonomine. The Court found no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below and dismissed both the revisions.
Issues: 1. Whether the lease was for a period of thirty years or sixty years? 2. Whether the lease was a composite lease attracting the exemption under Section 30(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act? 3. Whether the non-impleadment of the sub-tenants was fatal to the RCOP? 4. Whether the partnership firm cited as a respondent in the RCOP was not properly constituted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the lease was for a period of thirty years and not sixty years based on the following factors: a. A registered lease deed for thirty years was executed between the parties. b. An unregistered letter extending the lease period to sixty years was not admissible as evidence to vary the terms of the registered lease deed. c. The tenants had been paying property tax and doing everything except exercising the right of ownership over the demised premises, which indicated that the original vendors allowed the respondents to continue as tenants with the old terms and conditions. 2. The Court held that the lease did not qualify as a composite lease attracting the exemption under Section 30(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act based on the following factors: a. The lease deed did not specify the nature of the business to be carried out by the tenants in the demised premises. b. The tenants were permitted to sell the furniture and fittings leased to them, which indicated that the furniture and fittings were not intended to be used for the tenants' business. c. The tenants had not used the demised premises for their business, but had sublet it to various sub-tenants. 3. The Court held that the non-impleadment of the sub-tenants was not fatal to the RCOP based on the following factors: a. The Courts had held that non-impleadment of tenants would not be fatal to the case of the landlords. b. The landlords had taken steps to implead the sub-tenants as eonomine parties in the RCOP, but the tenants had discouraged them from doing so. c. The landlords could face any obstruction at the time of taking delivery at the instance of the sub-tenants, and it was for the landlords to face the same and not for the chief tenant to pit it as an embargo for the landlords to seek possession of the demised premises. 4. The Court held that the partnership firm cited as a respondent in the RCOP was properly constituted based on the following factors: a. The partnership firm was cited as a respondent in the RCOP along with its individual partners. b. The individual partners had filed separate counters in the RCOP, which indicated that they understood that they had been cited as respondents in the RCOP. c. The individual partners had also filed an RCA challenging the order of the Rent Controller, which indicated that they had accepted the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.
Final Decision: Both the revisions were dismissed.
1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2012 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCA Nos.523 and 522 of 2010 confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in RCOP No.2093 of 2009, these civil revisions petitions are focussed.
2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the learned Rent Controller.
3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts in a few broad strokes, absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two revisions would run thus:
The respondents herein filed the RCOP on the ground that they required the demised premises to be demolished and a new building erected as per law. However, the respondents therein who are the revision petitioners herein, resisted the petition on various grounds.
4. During enquiry on the side of the petitioners in RCOP, one Bakeer was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Nandalal Kishandoss was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R12 were marked.
5. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction, as against which two appeals were filed, one by the partnership firm and another by some of the partners of the said firm, for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the order of the Rent Controller.
6. Being aggrieved byand dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller and the judgment of the appellate authority, these two revisions are focussed on various grounds.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners/tenant in CRPs would advance his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
(a) Both the Courts below fell into error in holding that there was relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the petitioners and the respondents in the RCOP.
(b) The lease which emerged in favour of the tenants was not an ordinary lease, but a composite one attracting the exemption contemplated under Section 30(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, [herein after referred to as 'The Act'].
(c) It is not as though only the building was leased out but it was leased out along with furnitures for the purpose of the tenants using those furnitures in their business, and they had the right to sub lease the same which fact is explicit in the lease deed, which emerged between the tenants and the vendor of the present petitioners; however, both the Courts below failed to take note of the same, but they simply rejected the plea of the tenants.
(d) There is nothing to indicate and exemplify that the petitioners in the RCOP were ready with the building plan for construction, after demolition of the existing structure.
(e) In the fixation of fair rent proceedings initiated by the original owners of the building as against the revision petitioners herein, the petitioners in the RCOP attempted to get themselves impleaded and at that time itself, they were fully aware of the fact that there were as many as 64 sub tenants in the demised premises. It is unimaginable as to how within the statutory period of three months, the petitioners in the RCOP could evict all those sub tenants, even though they have not been added as eonomine parties and thereafter demolish the building and raise a new construction. Wherefore it shows that there are no bonafides in the claim of the landlords for demolition and reconstruction.
(f) In fact the original lease period was for thirty years with effect from 1970, however that was extended for thirty more years by virtue of an additional unregistered letter. Surprisingly, both the Courts below failed to take note of the same, but they simply held as though the lease got expired by the year 2000 itself, so to say, after the expiry of thirty years' period of lease.
(g) The financial wherewithal of the petitioners in RCOP was not established before the Rent
