SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
K. Lokanatha Rao - Appellant
Versus
E.N. Harinath Singh - Respondent
CRP. No. 2515 of 2023
Decided On : 27-09-2023

For the Petitioner:Ashok Menon, Advocate. For the Respondent:V. Sivakumar for M/s. P.B. Ramanujam Associates, Advocates.

Interpretation of the term 'Hotel' under the Act and the landlord's right to repossession in the absence of a valid agreement.

Headnote:

Hotel - Interpretation of Act Sections - 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b), 21(2)(d), 21(2)(g), 2(f), 4(2), 2(f)(ii) - The court discussed the interpretation of the term 'Hotel' under Section 2(f)(ii) of the Act and its exemption, as well as the landlord's right to invoke Section 21(2)(a) in the absence of a valid agreement.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed for repossession of tenanted premises under various grounds, and the Rent Court allowed the application under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. The petitioner appealed, claiming exemption as a hotel business and willingness to enter into an agreement. The respondent contended non-residential tenancy and failure to enter into an agreement.

Finding of the Court:

The court interpreted the term 'Hotel' and held that a restaurant or eating house does not fall under the ambit of the term 'Hotel' under Section 2(f)(ii) of the Act. It also affirmed the landlord's right to invoke Section 21(2)(a) in the absence of a valid agreement.

Issues: Interpretation of the term 'Hotel' under the Act, exemption of hotel business, and the landlord's right to repossession in the absence of a valid agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the term 'Hotel' and its exemption under the Act, as well as the landlord's right to repossession in the absence of a valid agreement.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the Revision, granting the petitioner three months to vacate and handover the subject property to the respondent.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Consitution of India to allow the present Revision and set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 23.11.2022 passed in R.L.T.A.No.26 of 2022 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai [Rent Tribunal, Chennai] confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in R.L.T.O.P. No. 454 of 2020 dated 09.12.2021 by the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai [Rent Court, Chennai])

1. The present petition has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 23.11.2022 passed in R.L.T.A. No.26 of 2022 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai [Rent Tribunal, Chennai] confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in R.L.T.O.P. No. 454 of 2020 dated 09.12.2021 by the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai [Rent Court, Chennai]

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Originally a petition in R.L.T.O.P. No.454 of 2020 has been filed by the respondent/landlord under Sections 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b), 21(2)(d) and 21 (2) (g) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 [for brevity, hereinafter referred to as Act] for repossession of the tenanted premises on the ground of failure to enter into an agreement, default in payment of rent, misuse of premises and own use and occupation against the petitioner / tenant. Before the trial court, on either side, no witness was examined and no exhibit was marked. Upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the documents, the Rent Court allowed the application under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act and the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises and handover the same to the respondent within one month from the date of order passed in the said RLTOP. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/tenant had filed an appeal in R.L.T.A.No.26 of 2022 before the appellate authority. After considering the agreements the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the petitioner/tenant had filed the present Revision before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the tenant originally under the father of the respondent, namely, Mr.Nara Singh in the year 1986 in respect of a small building consisting of ground and first floor on a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-. After the death of the said Nara Singh, the petitioner is paying monthly rent to the respondent. The present monthly rent is Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. apart from electricity charges. The respondent and his family informed the petitioner that there is no need to enter into lease agreement as the same is not required under the old law and thus petitioner continued the tenancy by paying the rent to them. Even after the commencement of this Act, the respondent did not issue any notice, letter or orally, calling upon the petitioner to enter into agreement. The petitioner is always willing to enter into agreement and he has never evaded to enter into agreement.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that petitioner/tenant is running a hotel business in the petition premises and the term 'Hotel' is exempted from the definition of premises defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. Further, taking shelter of Biswas Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary, he would contend that 'Hotel' includes a refreshment room, a boarding-house, a lodging-house, a coffeehouse and a cafe.

5. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following Judgments to substantiate his case and pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court as well.

(i) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court [Sushil Kumar Metha Vs. Gobind Ram Bohra] on 10.11.1989 in Civil Appeal No.4599 of 1989.

(ii) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court [A.V.G.P. Chettiar & sons and Others vs. T.Palanisamy Gounder] reported in (2002) 5 Supreme C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top