Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR, J.
K. Sasi - Petitioner
Versus
Mougamadou Sulthan Maricar and Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P.(NPD). Nos.1642 and 1789 of 2021 and C.M.P. Nos.12747 and 13909 of 2021
Decided On : 22-03-2024
RENT CONTROL - EVICTION PETITION - Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, Sections 12(3)(b), 25 - The court discussed the provisions of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, particularly focusing on the grounds for eviction based on demolition and reconstruction. It interpreted Section 12(3)(b) regarding the landlord's obligation to provide an undertaking for commencement of construction, concluding that such an undertaking can be given at the time of execution of the eviction order. The court also addressed the maintainability of a single eviction petition against multiple tenants occupying different portions of the same building, affirming that it is permissible if no prejudice is shown to the tenants. The court's decision was influenced by precedents that established the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction and the sufficiency of evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed eviction petitions against multiple tenants on the grounds of demolition and reconstruction of a non-residential building in a prime commercial area. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority, leading the tenants to file civil revision petitions challenging the decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord's requirement for eviction was bona fide, supported by evidence of the building's dilapidated condition and the landlord's financial capacity to undertake reconstruction. The court upheld the lower courts' decisions, confirming the eviction orders.
Issues: 1. Whether a single eviction petition against multiple tenants is maintainable. 2. Whether the landlord provided the necessary undertaking for commencement of construction as required under the Act. 3. Whether the landlord proved the building's condition necessitating immediate demolition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a single eviction petition against different tenants occupying portions of the same building is maintainable if no prejudice is shown. It also ruled that the landlord's undertaking regarding construction can be provided at the time of execution, and the evidence presented sufficiently demonstrated the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction.
Final Decision: Both civil revision petitions were dismissed, confirming the eviction orders against the tenants, with a six-month period granted for the tenants to vacate the premises under specified conditions.
ORDER :
S. Sounthar, J.
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2020 made in R.C.A.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act (District Judge) at Karaikal, confirming the Order and Decreetal Order dated 10.11.2017 made in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikal.)
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Common Order dated 18.02.2020 passed in R.C.A.No.3 of 2018 by District Judge, Karaikal, confirming the Decree and Judgment passed by the Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikal, in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2010 dated 10.11.2017 and allow the above said Civil Revision Petition.)
These Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of rent control proceedings.
2. The tenants are the petitioners. The 1st respondent herein filed Rent Control Eviction Petition against the petitioners on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller ordered eviction and the appeals filed by the petitioners were also dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings, the tenants have come by way of these civil revision petitions.
3. According to the 1st respondent/landlord, he is the owner of nonresidential building at Thirunallar Road, Karaikal, bearing Municipal Door Nos.84, 84/1 and 84/2. The Rent Control Eviction Petition was filed against the petitioner in both the revisions and one M.Shaik Ismail. The petitioners and other respondents were tenant of different portions of the same building.
4. The petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD).No.1789 of 2021 was inducted as a tenant in respect of entire portion bearing Door No.84 and he has been engaged in vending of ice cream and beverages in the name and style of 'Modern Ice Parlour'. The petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD).No.1642 of 2021 was inducted as a tenant in respect of portion of building bearing Door No.84/2 and he has been carrying on bakery business in the name and style of 'Grand Bakery'.
5. It is the case of the 1st respondent/landlord that entire buildings bearing Municipal Door Nos.84, 84/1 and 84/2 situated in a prime commercial locality of Karaikal District and almost all the old and ancient buildings in the said locality had been demolished and reconstructed into single or multi-storeyed shops and shopping complexes. The demised building is anachronistic in relation to the existing buildings in the locality. It was also averred by the 1st respondent in his eviction petition that income derived from the demised building was very low and not commensurate with it's locational advantage. Therefore, in order to augment income, the 1st respondent wanted to demolish the demised building and reconstruct the same. It was also averred by the 1st respondent that he had necessary financial resources to reconstruct the building and he obtained approval from Karaikal Planning Authority for the proposed construction as early as 18.03.2009. On these pleadings, the 1st respondent sought for eviction of the petitioners.
6. The petitioners filed their respective counter and raised a plea that the building was in good condition and therefore, there was no requirement for immediate demolition. The petitioners contended that eviction petition was filed with mala fide intention with the sole object of getting rid of tenants.
7. Before the Rent Controller, the 1st respondent/landlord was examined as PW.1 and a Civil and Structural Engineer was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the 1st respondent/landlord, 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19. On the part of the petitioners/tenants, the petitioner in C.R.P.(NPD).No.1789 of 2021 was examined as RW.1 and no documents were marked.
8. The Rent Controller on appreciation of oral and do
A single eviction petition against multiple tenants occupying different portions of the same building is maintainable under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, provided no p....
Point of law :Eviction of tenant - Bona fide need put forward by the landlord by itself is depending upon a contingency, namely, the final outcome of the civil suit mentioned above. Therefore in that....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a bona fide need for eviction, the burden of proof on tenants, and the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.
Right to property, though not a fundamental right is still a constitutional right. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authorit....
Point Of Law : Tenancy is only in respect of the land and the building was constructed by the tenant, the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, will not have jurisd....
Courts have a duty to ensure that there is no judicial contribution to delay.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
