Madras High Court
Parameswari Brick Works vs P.S. Sivaraman on 19 April, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)2MLJ316
ORDER Bakthavatsalam, J.
1. This is the second round of rent control proceedings which started 12 years ago. The revision petitioner is the tenant The respondent is the landlord who sought to evict the petitioner from the petitioner mentioned property on two grounds, i.e. the respondent requires the premises for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction and he requires the building for additional accommodation. It need not be said that the ground of additional accommodation comes under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent) Act, 1980. The petitioner resisted me petition but both the authorities concurrently found that the premises is not required for immediate demolition and re-construction but with regard to the requirement of additional accommodation both the authorities below have held that such a requirement is bona fide. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. This was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in C.R.P. No.1292 of 1984. Maheswaran, J. by order dated 5.11.1986, following the principles laid down in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone events have to be taken note of allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for examining the question whether the need of the respondent for additional accommodation still exist in view of the subsequent events. After remand the appellate authority sent back the matter to the Rent Controller by order dated 27.10.1989 for going into the question with regard to the subsequent events. Now both the authorities have held that the respondent landlord requires the building concerned for additional accommodation and it is bona fide. Against that order the petitioner is before this Court once again.
2. Mr. V.P. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that after the remand, both the authorities below have erred in not accepting the plea of the petitioner that the premises is not needed for additional accommodation for the landlord/respondent, since the landlord has let out two other premises after he filed the petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(C) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Learned Counsel further contends that in view of the proviso to Sub-clause (e) of Section 10(3) of the Act there is no finding with regard to the hardship which will be caused to the tenant and as such the order is vitiated on that ground. Learned Counsel relied upon a decision of Rama Prasada Rao. J. as he then was, which is reported in Loganatha Naiker v. Balasundaram Mudaliar (1974) II M.L.J. 256 and a judgment reported in Navamani Nadar v. Rangaswami Achari and offers 1977, T.L.N.J. 544 rendered by S. Natarajan J. as he then was. All these decisions relate to a proposition that a finding should be given by the authorities with reference to the relative hardship before order of eviction is passed under Section 10(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Learned Counsel also refers to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court under the previous Act which considered in part materia the provisions which is reported in Mohammed Jaffar v. Palaniappa Chettiar 1964 I M.L.J. 112.
3. Mr. Ali Hussain, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contends that this point of relative hardship has not been raised by the petitioner all through and this is the first time that mis-point has been raised that too in the second round of litigation. Learned Counsel points out that even in the counter filed in the original petition it has not been pleaded by the petitioner and the Rent controller has considered this in the order before remand and has given a finding with regard to this and that has become final.
4. Learned Counsel further points out that the petitioner has not raised this ground before the Appellate Authority in the first round or before this Court in the earlier occasion. It is now seen that this ground is not taken even in the grounds of revisions even before me and even in the order which has been passed after remand this point has not been well taken by the petitioner.
5. Considering the arguments of both the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent I think the contention raised by Mr. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner is not well founded. It is seen that the point of relative hardship has not been taken by the petitioner in the counter filed in the original application or it was argued either before the remand or after remand or even before this Court on the earlier occasion when the civil revision petition was allowed by Maheswaran, J. As such I am not inclined to accept the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner considering the facts that the Rent Controller on the earlier occasion that is in the earlier order before remand has not given a finding with regard to the relative hardship. As such in my view it has to be taken note that the Rent Controller has considered the matter and deemed to have given a finding on this aspect This view is supported by a judgment of V. Ramasamy, J. as he then was, in P. Raju v. Balakrishnan . Further a Division Bench of this Court in Mohammed Jaffer v. Palaniappa Chettair (1964) I M.L.J. 112 has considered the scope of the proviso and has held that the proviso to section regarding the hardship to tenant ought not to be read as conferring a practical immunity on the tenant from being evicted. It is not the object of the proviso to weigh the hardship of the tenant as against the advantage of the landlord on delicate scales giving the benefit of a slight tilt in favour of the tenant. The substance of the proviso is that in a proper case where the hardship caused to the tenant would be considerable and the advantage accruing to the landlord would be little or small, the application might be rejected. Considering the facts of this case, I am of the view that when these is. no material produced by the petitioner before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority with regard to the hardship I think the order of the Rent Controller passed on the earlier occasion is right and, as already stated by me, has become final on that aspect. V. Ramasamy. J. as he then was in Raju v. P. Balakrishnan held When the Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for additional accommodation, it necessarily follows that the Rent Controller must be also deemed to have been satisfied as to the relative hardship caused to the tenant.
So from the materials on record before me I am satisfied that the authorities below have considered this question and given a finding earlier. I do not think the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner can be applied to the facts of this case. In the decision reported in Loganatha Naicker v. Balasundaram Mudaliar (1974) II MLJ 256 the learned Judge has held that it is imperative for the authorities in a case arising under this act to give a specific finding whether the hardship the tenant is likely to suffer would out weigh the advantage to the landlord or vice versa. In the decision reported in Navamani Nadar v. Rdngaswami Achari and Anr. 1977 T.L.N.J. 544 S. Natarajan J. has also taken a similar view. But I am of the view that this depends upon the facts of each case. But this view is not applicable to this case which is coming on a second round. Further the limited point on which the matter was remitted to the authorities was to consider the subsequent events to based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court. In my view both the authorities below have considered that aspect with regard to the subsequent events and have held that the respondent/landlord makes a case for his requirement of additional accommodation and that it is bona fide. When such is the case I do not think it is possible for this Court to interfere in this matter at this stage. As already stated by me the Rent Controller has already given a finding with regard to the hardship. The petitioner ought to have adduced evidence to prove his hardship. Having kept quiet and not even whispered about this in the counter filed at the earliest point of time I do not think that it is necessary to allow the civil revision petition which is in the second round of litigation. As such there are no merits in the civil revision petition. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.