Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 589
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
M/s. Shanthi Jewelers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, S. Ashok Chopda & Others - Petitioners
Versus
J.A. Bidami Bai (died) & Another - Respondents
Rev. A. No. 33 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015 & C.M.P. No. 21667 of 2017
Decided On : 30-04-2019
For the Petitioners:P.S. Raman, Sr. Counsel, P. Krishnan, Advocate
For the Respondent:G. Ethirajulu, K. Chandru, Advocates
The crucial date for deciding bonafide requirement is the date of the petition, and subsequent events should not overshadow the genuineness of the need unless they completely eclipse the landlord's requirement.
Headnote:
Review Application - Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, particularly sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii), which deal with eviction on the grounds of willful default and owner's occupation. The court also considered the relevance of additional documents and subsequent events in determining the bonafide requirement of the landlord.
Fact of the Case:
The landlady filed an eviction application under the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the grounds of willful default and owner's occupation. The lower appellate authority partly allowed the appeal, confirming the eviction under the owner's occupation ground. The review application was filed on the basis that the court failed to consider additional documents and subsequent events that could impact the bonafide requirement of the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review application lacked merit as the additional documents and subsequent events were not relevant to decide the bonafide requirement of the landlord. The court also emphasized that the crucial date for deciding bonafide requirement is the date of the petition, and subsequent events should not overshadow the genuineness of the need unless they completely eclipse the landlord's requirement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court erred in dismissing the Civil Revision Petition without considering additional documents and subsequent events that could impact the bonafide requirement of the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the crucial date for deciding bonafide requirement is the date of the petition, and subsequent events should not overshadow the genuineness of the need unless they completely eclipse the landlord's requirement. The court also emphasized that the review jurisdiction is available when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and the interest of justice demands correction.
Final Decision: The review application was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed. The court found no error apparent on the face of the Order while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition.
1. This review application has been filed to review the Order passed by this Court in CRP.No.2282 of 2011 dated 17.09.2014.
2. The review is sought on the ground that while passing the final Order on 17.09.2014, this Court failed to note that M.P.No.1 of 2012 and M.P.No.3 of 2012 pending for reception of additional documents. It is the contention of the review petitioner that this Court has disposed of the Civil Revision petition without considering the additional documents filed in the above miscellaneous petition. If the additional documents are considered, this Court could have come to the conclusion that the landlord’s petition for eviction on the ground of owner’s occupation is not maintainable. The report of the Advocate Commissioner is also not considered by this Court while disposing the revision. Hence, this review is sought to review the Order passed by this Court.
3. During the pendency of the review application, a petition in C.M.P.No.8513 of 2019 is filed for reception of additional documents on the ground that the respondent has shifted his business from No.6/737, First Main Road, Muthamizh Nagar to No.9/5, Ullaramman Koil Street, Old Washermenpet in his own premises. To prove the above fact, he has taken photographs and also electricity connection and hence, those documents are necessary to be received as additional documents.
4. The above application has been objected by the respondent on the ground that review itself is not maintainable as against the final Order passed by the revisional authority under section 25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The case of bonafide requirement should be taken into account in the stage of petition and not in the review application. It is submitted that the respondent’s son Mr.Arihant is running the business and submitted that now the documents sought need not be allowed to be marked as exhibits. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the applications.
5. Brief facts leading to filing of this review is as follows:
The landlady has originally filed an application for eviction under section 10(2) (i) and (10) (3) (a) (iii) of Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended Act 23 of 1973 for eviction of the respondents on the ground of willful default and also owners occupation in R.C.O.P.No.1934 of 2006. Further, the building is also required for business of landlady’s son, who is doing business 10 kms. away from the petition mentioned property. The learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction on both the grounds. Against which an appeal has been filed and the first appellate authority partly allowed the appeal setting aside the Order of eviction under the ground of willful default. However, confirmed the Order of the Rent Controller Ordering eviction under section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act. The appellate authority in paragraph 18 of the Order has clearly held that the landlady’s son is doing business in Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118. The respondents also admitted in their counter that the landlady’s son is doing business in Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 18. As against which a revision has been filed before this Court in C.R.P.No.2282 of 2011. During the pendency of the revision, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 have been filed. M.P.No.2 of 2012 has been filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features in Door No.513 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 has been filed to receive additional documents namely the photographs. In M.P.No.2 of 2012, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down whether all the shops are facing the road or any shop is situate on the rear side and if any portion is found vacant. The Commissioner has also filed a report. However, while disposing the main Civil Revision Petition by brother Justice Mr.S.Manikumar, the miscellaneous petitions in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 were closed and the Civil Revision Petition has been dismissed confirming the finding of the Courts below. W
