Madras High Court
The Madras District Central ... vs A. Venkatesh on 6 February, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1986)1MLJ470
ORDER Maheswaran, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Rent Control), Madras, in R.C.A.No. 1231 of 1982 reversing the order of the Rent Controller, Madras, in H.R.C. No. 2072 of 1981.
2. The respondent (referred to as landlord hereinafter) applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the revision petitioner, the tenant, on the ground that the petition schedule premises which he has purchased is required by him for carrying on business as he does not own a non-residential building of his own. The tenant is a Co-operative Rank. The rent payable is Rs. 1,000. The contention of the respondent is that the claim of the landlord is not bona fide as he is not doing any business of his own and as he is doing a family business in his family house at No. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore. in an additional counter, the tenant contended that in a partition among the members of the family of the landlord, the premises No. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore, has been allotted to the landlord and his brothers and that he carries on joint family business in that premises and therefore he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. This contention found favour with the Rent Controller who stated that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the building for carrying on pawnbroker business is not bona fide. The result of that finding was that the petition was dismissed. In appeal by the landlord, the Appellate Authority took the view that the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building of his own and therefore he is entitled to possession of the petition schedule property. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. The tenant has filed this revision.
3. The area of controversy is limited in scope. It is pointed out for the revision petitioner by his learned Counsel, Miss. Krishnaveni that the copy of partition deed, Ex.B-1, produced by the tenant shows that N. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore, was allotted to the share of the landlord and his brothers and their father and therefore he is occupying a building of his own and he cannot seek to evict the tenant for his occupying the petition schedule property, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
4. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the landlord is having only a share in that house at No. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore, and therefore he is entitled to maintain the application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act in respect of the petition schedule property. This point whether the landlord who is having a share only in the family house, can maintain an application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act need not detain us any longer in view of the ruling of this Court in M.Mani v. D. Ramalingam (1985) 98 L.W. 299. That Was a case where the expression "is not occupying a residential building of his own" occurring in Section 10(3)(a)(i) came to be interpreted. I have pointed out in that decision that the expression "is not occupying a residential building of his own" should be limited to the situation where the landlord is not occupying a residential building of which he is the sole owner thereof. As the same expression occurs in Section 10(3)(a)(iii), this ruling will hold good in case of requirement of non-residential building also. Therefore, the petition by the landlord respondent is perfectly maintainable.
5. The question now is whether an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession should be made. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord following a ruling of this Court in Abdul Rahman v. S. Sadasivam that there is no jurisdiction for the Rent Controller to go into the question of bona fide requirement in a claim under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Ramanujam, J. took the view that a distinction has to be made between the two sections, Section 10(3)(a)(i) and Section 10(3)(a)(iii), in view of the word "require" occurring in Section 10(3)(a)(i) and the absence of that word in Section 10(3)(a)(iii). In other words, what the learned Judge points out is that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide, as the Rent Controller has to pass an order of eviction in case the landlord is not occupying for purpose of business which he is carrying on, any non-residential building in the City which is his own. The learned Judge further pointed out that when the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(i) and Section 10(3)(a)(iii) use different expressions, it should be taken that the Legislature intended these provisions to have different operations. With respect to the learned Judge, I may point out that the mere absence of the word "require" in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) would not necessarily lead to the inference that the Legislature did not intend that the Rent Controller should go into the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord in respect of the requirement of a non-residential premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. My reasons for holding so are as follows: Section 10 enumerates certain grounds for the eviction of the tenant. In other words, eviction under the Rent Control Act can be effected only on the grounds mentioned in Section 10. The landlord may have a right to evict the tenant under the general law. Section 10(3)(a) says that the landlord may, subject to the provisions of Clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Section 10(3)(a)(i) deals with residential buildings. Section 10(3)(a)(ii) deals with non-residential buildings used for purpose of keeping vehicles. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is in respect of non-residential buildings. Section 10(3)(b) gives a right to religious, charitable, educational or other public institution, to institute proceedings before the Controller if the institution requires the building. Section 10(3)(c) is for additional accommodation. Section 10(3)(d) speaks of tenancy for specified period agreed between the landlord and the tenant and it prohibits the landlord from applying, before the expiry of such period. Now, after these sections, Section 10(3)(e) runs thus:
The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application.
I find in the judgment of Ramanujam, J. this Section 10(3)(e) has not been adverted to. Section 10(3)(e) applies to Sections 10(3)(a)(i), 10(3)(a)(ii) and 10(3)(iii) and also to Section 10(3)(b) and 10(3)(c). If the Legislature intended the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(i) and Section 10(3)(a)(iii) to have different operations, the Legislature would not have stated in Section 10(3)(e) that the Controller should be satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, before he makes an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession, and the further words "if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application" very clearly show that the Controller should, before passing an order for eviction, be satisfied with the bona fides of the claim, or else he should dismiss it. I am therefore of the view that the Rent Controller will have jurisdiction to go into the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord even under Section 10(3)(ii) notwithstanding the fact that the word "require" is not found in Section 10(3)(a)(iii). Otherwise, even a mala fide application by the landlord has to be allowed putting the landlord in possession once it is proved that the landlord is not occupying for purpose of business which he is carrying on a non-residential building in the city, which is his own. Even the learned Judge points out that "if the conditions set out in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) are found to be satisfied on enquiry by the Rent Controller, then, unless the application filed by the landlord under that section is found to be for any oblique purpose, the Rent Controller cannot reject that application". Even to find out whether the application is for any oblique purpose, one has to find out whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide.
6. In this case, P.W.1 has spoken to about the requirement of the premises for doing business which is carrying on in the common house at No. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore. The evidence of P.W.I has not been contradicted for no one has been examined on behalf of the revision petitioner-Bank. The bona fides of the landlord therefore cannot be questioned. The order of the Appellate Authority putting the landlord 'n possession is correct and is confirmed and the revision is dismissed. No costs.
7. The revision petitioner being a Bank, it has to be granted some time for making arrangements to shift the Bank. Mr. Maninarayanan has no objection for grant of a year's time. The revision petitioner is granted twelve months' time from this date for vacating the premises.