Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2597
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
Kalidas
Versus
K.P. Subbian Proprietor Sri Lakshmi Jewellery Erode & Another
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1068 of 2009 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided on : 25-07-2013
For the Petitioners:R. Subramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for K.S. Jeyaganeshan, Advocate, R2, No Appearance.
The landlord's bonafide need for both residential and non-residential purposes should outweigh all restrictions imposed by the Act, and the legislation is fair to both tenants and landlords.
Headnote:
Eviction - Owner's Occupation - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act - Section 10(3)(a)(iii) - Section 21 - The court considered whether eviction can be sought for on the ground of owner's occupation for both residential and non-residential purposes in respect of a building let out for non-residential purpose only, whether a single petition filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is maintainable seeking eviction on the ground of owner's occupation both for residential and non-residential purposes, and whether the requirement of the landlord in this case is bonafide. The court analyzed the definition of 'building,' the conversion of residential buildings into non-residential buildings, and the provisions under Sections 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It emphasized that the landlord's bonafide need should outweigh all restrictions imposed by the Act and that the legislation is fair to both tenants and landlords. The court allowed the eviction petition, restoring the order of the Rent Controller and granting the tenant three months to vacate the premises.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant to occupy the building for both residential and non-residential purposes. The tenant resisted, arguing that the landlord cannot seek eviction for residential use as the building was let out for non-residential purposes only and that the landlord's requirement was not bonafide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord's bonafide need for both residential and non-residential purposes outweighed the restrictions imposed by the Act. It held that the landlord could seek eviction for both purposes under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and that the landlord's requirement was bonafide.
Issues: The court considered whether eviction can be sought for on the ground of owner's occupation for both residential and non-residential purposes in respect of a building let out for non-residential purpose only, whether a single petition filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is maintainable seeking eviction on the ground of owner's occupation both for residential and non-residential purposes, and whether the requirement of the landlord in this case is bonafide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the landlord's bonafide need should outweigh all restrictions imposed by the Act and that the legislation is fair to both tenants and landlords. It held that the landlord could seek eviction for both residential and non-residential purposes under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and that the landlord's requirement was bonafide.
Final Decision: The court allowed the eviction petition, restoring the order of the Rent Controller and granting the tenant three months to vacate the premises.
1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. He is aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, rejecting his application seeking for eviction of the first respondent/tenant, filed under Section 10 (3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. For the sake of convenience, I refer the petitioner and first respondent, as landlord and tenant, respectively, hereafter.
2. The case of the landlord is as follows:-The petition mentioned property originally belonged to his mother, the second respondent herein. The first respondent became the tenant under the second respondent on 19.6.1992 for running a jewellery shop. In a partition suit filed between the family members of the landlord, a final decree came to be passed during December 2003 in which the petition mentioned property was allotted to the share of the landlord. The building, which consists of ground and first floors, was originally constructed for residential purpose. However, it was leased out to the first respondent for non-residential and residential purposes. The tenant permitted his staff members to stay in the first floor portion and also installed an air conditioner unit in the second floor covering the same with a temporary roofing. The landlord is residing in a rented building which is far away from the Erode Municipal limits. Therefore, he requires the first floor for his own use and occupation. His son, a dentist, is having his dental clinic at Coimbatore in a rented building. Besides, he is also working as a lecturer in J.K.K.Dental College at Komarapalayam near Erode. For discharging his duties as lecturer in the said College and also for shifting his dental clinic from Coimbatore to Erode, the ground floor of the petition premises is required for the occupation of his son.
3. The tenant resisted the said application. His case is as follows:-The eviction petition filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the said Act is not maintainable. The landlord cannot file a petition for eviction of a residential building under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) as he is admittedly seeking the first floor portion for his own personal use. Thus, a single petition for eviction of the premises both for residential and non-residential purpose is not maintainable. The building was originally was let out to another third party for running Kottakkal Arya Vydyasala and thereafter the same was let out to this tenant for non-residential purpose viz., for running a jewellery shop. Therefore, the building is only a non-residential building. The landlord has got other residential and non-residential buildings within the town of Erode and the same are vacant. The landlord's son is not having his dental clinic in a rented building and is not working in J.K.K.Dental College at Komarapalayam. Therefore, the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide.
4. The landlord filed a reply to the said counter in which he has specifically denied the contention that he has got other residential and non-residential buildings at Erode. In respect of the other averments contained in the counter, the landlord made specific denial of the same.
5. The learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition by accepting the case of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller pointed out that it is not necessary to file two separate applications one under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and another under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the said Act, if there is a bonafide requirement for both purposes. He also found that the tenant has not disputed the requirement of the landlord of the first floor for his personal use and that the landlord is not owning any other building at Erode. In fact, the learned Rent Controller has pointed out that the tenant, while deposing as R.W.1, answered several questions as not knowing with regard to running of a dental clinic by the landlord's son at Coimbatore and his allegation against the landlord of owning of other buildings at Erode etc.,
