Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Mrs. R.Suguna - Petitioner
Versus
Hindu Office & National Press Employment Union, rep. by Mr. M. Kamalanathan and Anr. – Respondents
C.R.P.No.1767 of 2021
Decided On : 30-04-2025
For the Appellant : Mr. K.S. Madhavan
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Sundaravadanam
The distinction between tenant and licensee is critical, with composite leases exempt from tenant protections under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Headnote:
(A) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Section 8(5) and Section 30(iii) - Challenge to order of Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming denial of tenant status - Revision petitioner claimed tenancy rights after mother's demise, but was found to be a licensee due to composite lease nature - Courts below held that the premises were exempt under Section 30(iii) of the Act. (Paras 1, 3, 7, 10, 12)
(B) Tenant vs. Licensee - Distinction between tenant and licensee is crucial in determining rights under the Act - The intention of the parties and nature of agreements dictate the classification. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The revision petitioner claimed to be a tenant after her mother's death, seeking to deposit rent under Section 8(5) of the Act. The premises were used for events, and the respondents contended she was merely a licensee. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority found the premises exempt under Section 30(iii).
Findings of Court:
The courts below correctly identified the arrangement as a composite lease, thus exempting it from the Act's protections.
Issues: Whether the revision petitioner qualifies as a tenant under the Act or is merely a licensee due to the nature of the agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the composite nature of the lease, including amenities, justified the exemption under Section 30(iii), and the revision petitioner could not claim tenant protections.
Result: Civil revision petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.)
An order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller in declining to accept the petitioner as a tenant so as to claim the protection under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is put to challenge in the present civil revision petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
i) Claiming to be a tenant under the respondents, having been attorned with the tenancy rights after the demise of her mother, the original tenant in respect of the petition mentioned premises, the revision petitioner had filed the R.C.O.P under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking permission of the court to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller.
ii) The mother of the revision petitioner was claimed to have been inducted into possession of the petition mentioned premises in pursuance of a lease and rental agreement in the year 1978 and she was paying a monthly rent of Rs.7,500/-.
iii) The present rent is Rs.17,500/- as per the Lease Deed dated 5.1.2014. Besides monthly rent, a sum of Rs.6,000/- for amenities and Rs.4,000/- for building maintenance are collected by the respondents as per the agreement of amenities dated 1.1.2011 and thereby, the petitioner had been paying a total sum of Rs.27,500/- per month through cheques till January 2015.
iv) The petition mentioned premises was being let out by the petitioner for performing marriage and other functions.
v) Whileso, the vacant possession of the petition mentioned premises was insisted by the respondents, which made the revision petitioner to issue notice on 5.3.2015. Since the respondents refused to receive the cheque towards rent for the month of February, 2015, it was sent once again alongwith notice dated 14.3.2015, calling upon them to specify the name of a bank to enable the petitioner to remit the rent.
vi) After exchange of notices and attempts to make payment of rent in other modes, the petitioner had filed the petition seeking permission to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller.
vii) The respondents had filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner is not a statutory tenant as defined under the Act and she is only a licensee and the provisions of the the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 will not apply to her as the petition mentioned premises is exempted under Section 30 of the Act.
viii) The Rent Controller, sustaining the contention raised by the respondents, found that the revision petitioner cannot claim herself as a statutory tenant to enjoy the benefits of the Act as the petition mentioned premises is exempted under Section 30 (iii) of the Act.
ix) The Rent Control Appellate Authority also concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
3. The submissions of Mr.K.S.Madhavan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner are as under:-
i) The revision petitioner is a tenant as contemplated under Section 2(8) and the first respondent is the landlord as defined under Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960.
ii) The court below, having accepted that the revision petitioner had complied with all mandatory requirements setforth under Section 8(5) of the Act, erred in holding that the tenancy is a composite lease as defined under Section 30(iii) of the Act.
iii) While Ex.P3/R1 being an agreement for letting out the petition mentioned premises alone, Ex.R2 is a separate agreement of amenities and such amenities cannot be construed as fixtures or accessories for granting exemption to the petition mentioned premises under Section 30(iii) of the Act holding that it is a composite lease. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Dr.Jayasimhalu vs. St.Monicas Primary School, (2014(2) CTC 815).
4. The submissions of Mr.T.Sundaravadanam, learned counsel appearing for the respond
