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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 61010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
P.Bhaskar – Appellant
Versus
T.Dharam Chand – Respondent
C.R.P.Nos. 144 & 145 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.Tanya Kapoor
For the Respondents: Mr.P.Damodaran

Landlords must establish a bona fide need for eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, balancing tenant hardship against landlord requirements.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 - Sections 10(3)(c) and 23 - Eviction proceedings - The landlord sought eviction of the tenant for additional accommodation. The court must assess if the landlord's requirement is genuine and bona fide, placing the burden on the landlord to establish necessity beyond mere desire. (Paras 16-37)

(B) Relationship between landlord and tenant - The tenant contended the eviction was motivated by greed and failure to provide basic amenities, whereas the landlord demonstrated a legitimate need for the space for pawnbroking expansion, which was acknowledged as bona fide. (Paras 5.3, 10.1, 10.2, 11.1, 11.2)

Facts of the case:
The landlord filed for eviction asserting that the tenant's portion was essential for business expansion. The tenant, while acknowledging his occupancy and operations, argued hardship due to relocation and unauthorized rent increases. (Paras 4-6)

Findings of Court:
The appellate body correctly found that the landlord established his requirement as genuine and outweighed the tenant's claims of hardship, determining that the tenant could secure alternate accommodation. (Paras 37-39)

Issues: The critical considerations were the genuineness of the landlord’s request and the comparative hardship between both parties. (Paras 1-2)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that while the tenant’s security and business continuity were important, these did not supersede the landlord's demonstrated and legitimate need for the property, reaffirming the principle that tenant hardship must be substantiated. (Paras 18-28)

Result: The revision petition against eviction is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. initial tenant dynamics and landlord's request for eviction. (Para 1 , 4)

COMMON ORDER

These revision petitions have been filed by the tenant, one challenging the judgement and decree dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which reversed the order dated 07.12.2013 of the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, refusing the landlord’s request for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation, and thereby ordered the eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the subject shop premises to enable the landlord to expand his pawnbroking business being run in the adjacent shop owned by him; and the other challenging the order dated 19.09.2023 in M.P. No.3 of 2023 in R.C.A. No.708 of 2013, dismissing the tenant’s application under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, [for short, “the Rent Control Act, 1960”], seeking permission to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these revision petitions will hereinafter be referred to as "tenant" and "landlord," according to their jural relationship.

4. The landlord/respondent herein in his eviction petition pleaded that he is the absolute owner of the premises. He let out a non-residential portion on the ground floor to the revision petitioner/tenant from 01.02.2005 on a monthly rent of Rs.9,500/-, excluding electricity charges, with a rental advance of Rs.1,75,000/-. The tenant/revision petitioner runs a Gents' Beauty Parlaour there. The landlord, engaged in pawnbroking with the requisite license, operates his business in the adjacent portion and resides in the rear side of the same floor. Initially, pawned articles were stored in his residential portion, but with the family's growth, residential space has become insufficient. He now requires the tenant’s portion for expansion of his business. He owns no other property and claims that the tenant's occupation is ideal for his needs. The hardship to the landlord outweighs any inconvenience to the tenant, who can easily relocate. Hence, the original petition seeking eviction of the tenant for the landlord’s requirement of additional accommodation for non-residential purpose.

5.1 The revision petitioner/tenant admitted being a tenant under the landlord for a non-residential ground floor portion on a monthly rent of Rs.9,500/-, having paid Rs.1,75,000/- as advance and Rs.10,000/- as electricity deposit, totalling Rs.1,85,000/-. He contended that he runs a Gents Beauty Parlour at the premises. He further contended that securing alternate accommodation would be difficult and alleged that the landlord has been arbitrarily increasing rent from Rs.6,200/- to Rs.7,200/-, then to Rs.8,000/-, and now Rs.9,500/- as per his whims and fancies. The landlord recently demanded Rs.15,000/-, which the tenant refused to pay, prompting the landlord to file the present petition.

5.2 The tenant also contended that despite paying rent for June and July 2011, the landlord failed to issue receipts and refused to accept the August 2011 rent. As a result, the tenant sent a money order and letter on 22.09.2011, after which the landlord accepted the rent. However, rent for September and October 2011 was again refused. The tenant denied the landlord’s need for additional space, stating that relocating would cause financial loss due to redoing interiors, loss of customers, and disruption of business built on local trust.

5.3 In his additional counter, the tenant alleged that the landlord, with ulterior motives, filed the petition to evict him and has been harassing him by disconnecting water supply since March 2012, citing pipe repairs. This has caused operational difficulties and customer dissatisfaction.

5.4 The tenant further alleged that the landlord deliberately disconnected water supply to his portion, prompting a police complaint on 23.06.2012.

Follow

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