Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1738
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
Kutty - Appellant
Versus
Rajasekar - Respondent
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2089 of 2020 & CMP. No. 13208 of 2020 & CMP. No. 5865 of 2021
Decided On : 27-05-2022
For the Petitioner:G. Rajkumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Packiaraj, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the landlord to establish bonafide reasons for eviction and the need for demolition and reconstruction, as well as the court's consideration of evidence in upholding the grounds for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) while dismissing the revision petition.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Section 10(3)(a)(iii), Section 14(1)(b) - [Super Forgings & Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd., M.K.Stores, Bata India Limited] - The court discussed the landlord's grounds for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, focusing on the need for demolition and reconstruction of the building and the landlord's claim for own occupation for non-residential purposes. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the landlord's testimony, planning permission, and building approval plan, as well as the engineer's report submitted by the tenant. The court emphasized the requirement for the landlord to establish bonafide reasons for eviction and the need for demolition and reconstruction, ultimately dismissing the revision petition.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant, who had lost eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, approached the court seeking to set aside the eviction orders. The landlord sought eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, claiming the need for demolition and reconstruction of the commercial building and own occupation for non-residential purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord failed to establish bonafide reasons for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) but upheld the grounds for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) based on the evidence presented, ultimately dismissing the revision petition and directing the tenant to deliver vacant possession within six months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the landlord's claims for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, focusing on the need for demolition and reconstruction of the building and the landlord's claim for own occupation for non-residential purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for the landlord to establish bonafide reasons for eviction and the need for demolition and reconstruction, considering the evidence presented by both parties and the landlord's failure to meet the criteria for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) while upholding the grounds for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) based on the evidence.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the tenant was directed to deliver vacant possession within six months. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 23.11.2017 passed in RCOP No.639 of 2015 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, XI Small Causes Judge, Chennai confirmed in fair and decretal order dated 11.02.2020 passed in R.C.A. No.839 of 2017 on the file of the IX Small Causes Court, Chennai.)
1. The tenant who had successively lost the eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller in RCOP No.639 of 2015, and before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in an appeal preferred by him in RCA No.839 of 2017, has approached this court in this revision. The eviction was sought under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the Act) and for own occupation under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, for demolition and reconstruction. The building, admittedly is a commercial building.
2. The case of the landlord is that the building is over 40 years old, and he needs the property for demolition and reconstruction of the property, and also for his own occupation for commencing a business. The tenant would however, contend that the building is sound, and it does not require any demolition and reconstruction and that the landlord has other commercial buildings in the city where he is already carrying on business.
3. The dispute went to trial, and during trial, the landlord entered the witness box, and examined himself as P.W.1, and produced Ext-P1 to Ext.P3, of which Ext.P2 is the planning permission and Ext.P3 is a building approval plan. The tenant did not enter the box, but instead examined a certain engineer as R.W.1 through who he has filed Ext.R1, the report of the engineer. This report pertains to the condition of the building in question.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that:
(a) The landlord as PW1, has admitted in his cross-examination that he is in possession of other commercial buildings in the city and therefore, is not entitled to seek eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
(b)Turning to his prayer for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the petition itself is laid on the strength of Ex.P2, a permission of the Corporation for demolishing the property within the meaning of Section 246-A of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (hereinafter called as MCMC Act). This proceeding is not one under Section 274 of the MCMC Act, and the landlord/respondent herein has not taken out a commission for examining the engineer to provide material for the tribunals to come to the conclusion that the building indeed requires demolition. The landlord/respondent has not produced any other document to indicate that he has already taken preparatory steps for demolition and reconstruction. The tenant however, on his part has examined an engineer as RW1 before the tribunal, who made a statement before the court that the building might stand for few more years.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant relied on ratio in Super Forgings & Steels (Sales) Pvt. Ltd., [(1995)1 SCC 410], M.K.Stores, rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Mohamed Rafiq vs. A.Syed Sulthan [(2021) 5 Mad LJ 266 and another decision of this court in Bata India Limited, rep. by its Manager vs. M.R.Manickam [2004 (1) CTC 94].
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondent herein submitted that so far as the ground - own occupation for non-residential purposes is concerned, since the filing of the petition, the landlord's son has completed his BDS degree, and he is now in search of a premises for setting up his clinic.
6. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that whether the building requires demolition and reconstruction must be assessed based on the current status of the building and not in anticipation, how it may stand for few more years.
7. The building is a non-residential build
