Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Khujem Badruddin - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Allied Sales (India) Rep by its Partner, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sekhani - Respondent
C.R.P.No. 2781 of 2024
Decided on : 24-01-2025
Based on the provided legal document, the court's decision emphasizes that a landlord can seek eviction for their own occupation under the relevant Tamil Nadu law, even if there is an incorrect citation of the law, provided that the landlord establishes a bona fide need for the premises for their own business purposes (!) .
The key findings include: - The landlords demonstrated that they did not possess any other commercial property within Chennai suitable for their business needs (!) (!) . - The premises in question are non-residential, and the landlords are actively engaged in their own business at the time of the eviction petition (!) (!) . - The requirement for eviction was established as genuine and bona fide, motivated by the landlords' need to expand their business and not by any oblique motives (!) (!) . - Even if there was a demand for increased rent, it does not negate the bona fide nature of the landlords' requirement (!) (!) (!) . - The court found that the appellate authority erred in its judgment by not properly considering the evidence that the landlords' business premises belonged to a family member and that the landlords did not own any other commercial property in Chennai (!) .
The court ultimately reinstated the eviction order, affirming that the landlords' claim for their own occupation was valid and that the incorrect citation of law did not bar their claim, as long as the bona fide requirement was established (!) .
Additionally, the court granted a six-month period for the tenant to vacate the premises, considering the tenant's longstanding business operations and the undertaking filed by the tenant to vacate by a specified date (!) (!) .
In summary, the court upheld that a bona fide need for self-occupation by the landlord, supported by sufficient evidence and despite procedural or citation errors, is sufficient to justify eviction under the law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and factual background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondent's arguments against eviction (Para 5 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's observations on requirements and evidence (Para 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. ratio decidendi regarding bona fide requirement (Para 19 , 20 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 33) |
| 5. bona fide requirement for eviction held valid despite lease issues. (Para 24) |
| 6. final decision and order of court (Para 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39) |
ORDER :
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.04.2024 made by the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai, allowing the R.C.A.No.151 of 2022 thereby setting aside the order of eviction dated 20.10.2022 made by the learned XV Judge, Court of the Small Causes at Chennai in R.C.O.P.No.665 of 2018.
2. The petitioners are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant. The 1st petitioner herein is the brother of Mohamedi Badruddin. The said Mohamedi Badruddin, who originally filed the eviction petition along with his brother 1st petitioner-Khujem Badruddin is no more and he died pending eviction petition. The legal heirs of the deceased -Mohamedi Badruddin were brought on record as respondents 3 to 6 in the eviction petition.
3. The petition mentioned premises is a non-residential/commercial building and the petitioners filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.665 of 2018 under Section 10 (3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as it requires for own occupation for the purpose of carrying on their own business.
4. The facts leading to the filing of the eviction petition by the petitioners/landlords in brief are as follows:
(a) The petition mentioned premises is a commercial property situated in the ground floor of the Northern wing in the building known as “ZILLE-E- Mohammed” Old No.158, New No.325, Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai 600001, measuring an extent of 1697 square feet. It was originally belonged to T and B Dehgamwala Estate, represented by co-owners Badruddin Mohamedally and others. The said property was leased out to the respondent on 01.07.2011 by the T and B Dehgamwala Estate on a monthly rent of Rs.33,000/- and a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- was paid by the respondent towards security deposit.
(b) The said property was subsequently allotted to the 1st petitioner and his brother - Mohamedi Badruddin by decree and judgement dated 19.12.2017 passed by this court in C.S.No.193 of 2014. Thus the 1st petitioner and his brother have become the absolute owners of the petition mentioned premises. After the judgement, a legal notice was issued by the 1st petitioner and his brother to the respondent demanding payment of rent, the respondent has started making payment of rent to the petitioners.
(c) The brother of the 1st petitioner along with his sons and the son of the 1st petitioner were carrying on business of manufacture of valves under the name and style of M/s.AMCO Industrial Valves, a partnership firm at No.6, Thandava Moorthy Street, Royapuram, Chennai 600 013. The said premises is in a mixed residential zone. Therefore, the son of the 1st petitioner and the brother and brother's son of the 1st petitioner decided to use subject premises, which is a commercial building in order to expand their business from manufacturing to retail trade. Therefore, they required the premises leased out to the respondent for their own occupation for the purpose of carrying on their own business as they did not have any other commercial property in Chennai for their trading business. The subject premises would be suitable for their business venture. Therefore, the 1st petitioner and his brother issued a notice and filed the eviction petition.
5. The respondent company filed their counter opposing the petition though it admitted the jural relationship between the petitioners and themselves. The respondent contended that they have been in possession only in respect of 1000 square feet. The re
AI
A landlord can seek eviction for own occupation under the Tamil Nadu Act despite incorrect citation of law, as long as bona fide need for the premises is established for business.
Point of law: She has specifically come forward with a case that she is presently running a clinic in a rented premises, however, no documents whatsoever has been produced to prove the said contentio....
Eviction allowed for bona fide business expansion despite other premises if not reasonably suitable; use and occupation charges enhanced to market rate using credible comparables during stay.
Pre-amendment eviction petitions from non-residential premises maintainable retrospectively due to Supreme Court on Article 14 violation. Landlord's bonafide need for prime own shops upheld despite r....
Point of Law : Findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not even be said to be perverse in any way. The High Court could not have re-appreciated the e....
Landlord's bona fide need for property doesn’t require dire necessity; tenant's livelihood claims must prove attempts for alternative accommodations.
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
