Madras High Court
Mrs.R.Suguna vs Hindu Office & National Press
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 22.04.2025
Delivered on : 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
C.R.P.No.1767 of 2021
Mrs.R.Suguna Petitioner
Vs.
1. Hindu Office & National Press
Employment Union,
New No.1, Old No.13,
New Bungalow Street,
Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002.
rep. by Mr.M.Kamalanathan,
General Secretary,
also at the Hindu Office,
Kasthuri Buildings,
No.859 & 860, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2. Mr.Jayarathinam,
Treasurer,
Hindu Office & National Press
Employment Union,
New No.1, Old No.13,
New Bungalow Street,
Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002
also at the Hindu Office,
Kasthuri Buildings,
No.859 & 860, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973
against the fair and decreetal order dated 9.3.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.374 of
2016 by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai confirming the order
and decree dated 24.6.2016 in R.C.O.P.No.616 of 2015 passed by the Rent
Controller, XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )
2
For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Madhavan
For R1 : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam
ORDER
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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm ) 3 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm ) 4 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 respondents are as under:-
i) The revision petitioner is not entitled to claim herself as a tenant under the respondents. The intention of the parties to the agreement is a predominant one to decide whether it is a lease or licence. Even from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm ) 5 contention of the revision petitioner in the RCOP itself, it could be seen that the petition mentioned premises was used for conducting marriages and other functions, and thereby it could be construed only as a licence granted to the revision petitioner in respect of the petition mentioned premises alongwith the fixtures and electrical equipments therein.
ii) Though a separate agreement had been entered with regard to the fixtures and electrical equipments, such fixtures were also meant for conducting the auspicious functions in the petition mentioned premises and thereby, the courts below have rightly dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioner holding that it is a composite lease as defined under Section 30(iii) of the Act.
iii) The findings of the courts below being a reasoned one do not warrant any interference and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. The revision petitioner seeks to contend that she is only a tenant under the landlords/respondents and thereby the R.C.O.P filed by her for depositing the agreed rent before the Rent Controller is a sustainable one whereas it is the case of the petitioner that it was only a licence granted to her to run a marriage hall with all the fixtures and electrical equipments therein and thereby she cannot claim any protection under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. The courts below, having accepted the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm ) 6 contention of the landlords/respondents, dismissed the R.C.O.P filed by her.
7. The only issue to be decided in the civil revision petition is whether the revision petitioner is a tenant as defined under the the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 entitled to any protection under the said Act or she does not have any recourse under the said Act in view of the exemption under Section 30 of the said Act.
8. A perusal of Ex.P3/A1 in respect of the petition mentioned property may reflect it as if it is a lease agreement simply letting the premises for a monthly rent. However, the agreement of amenities, Ex.R2 produced by the landlords/respondents, would make it clear that the electrical equipments like Air Conditioners, Tube Lights, Fans, Halogen Bulbs fitted in the same premises taken by the revision petitioner from the landlords/respondents as a licensee would prove the intention of the parties for letting out the premises.
9. Of course, in the decision in Dr.Jayasimhalu vs. St.Monicas Primary School, (2014(2) CTC 815), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court has held as under:-
"11. Section 30 of the Act speaks of exemption in the case of certain buildings. Clause 1 & 2 enumerated thereon may not be applicable for the present case on hand. Clause 3 of Section 30 of the Act reads that in a lease of the building https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm ) 7 under which the object of the Tenant is to run business or industry with the fixtures, machinery, furniture or other articles belonging to the Landlord and situated in such building, the Act may not be applicable. Thus, reading of the said provision will amply make it clear that if a building is let out by the Landlord or the Landlady to the Tenant to run the business or industry with fixtures, machinery, furniture or other articles belonging to the Landlord situated in such building, there is exemption to take proceedings under the said Act. In the given case on hand, as stated already, what has been let out to the Respondents is only a building for running the School. It is not even the case of the Respondents that what has been let out to them is a School."
10. But, in the case on hand, though there are two different agreements, one for leasing the petition mentioned property and another with regard to amenities, both had been entered in respect of one and the same premises. Though the lease deed does not specifically contain the purpose for which the premises was let out, the nature of the fixtures fitted/installed in the petition mentioned premises, discloses that it was a composite lease between the parties coming under the purview of Section 30(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 and thus, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner does not come to her rescue. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm ) 8
11. Furthermore, it is the case of the revision petitioner herself before the Rent Controller that the premises was being booked for conducting auspicious functions. The usage of the amenities covered under the separate agreement are non-separable from the petition mentioned premises and it is seen that they are fitted/installed in the petition mentioned premises probabilising the intention of the parties.
12. Further, it is relevant to note that Section 30(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 throws light on the issue. It reads as under:-
"Exemption in the case of certain buildings:-
Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to --
........ ........
(iii) any lease of a building under which the object of the tenant is to run the business or industry with the fixtures, machinery, furniture or other articles belonging to the landlord and situated in such building."
13. The above legal provision is not an exhaustive one. The words "other articles" found therein have a wide coverage, which could certainly include the electrical fittings referred in the agreement of amenities, Ex.R2, especially, when the petition mentioned premises being only 1495 sqft, 81 tube lights, 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm ) 9 decorative lamps, 8 halogen bulb fittings, 3 air conditioners and 40 fans of various types let out on hire simultaneously alongwith the petition mentioned premises makes out a case of composite lease and thereby, this court is of the considered view that the courts below have rightly held that the petition mentioned premises is exempted under Section 30(iii) of the Act and dismissed the petition, which do not warrant any interference by this court.
14. In the result, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
30.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No ssk.
To
1. VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. Rent Controller, XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
3. General Secretary, Hindu Office & National Press Employment Union, New No.1, Old No.13, New Bungalow Street, Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002.
also at the Hindu Office, Kasthuri Buildings, No.859 & 860, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm ) 10
4. Treasurer, Hindu Office & National Press Employment Union, New No.1, Old No.13, New Bungalow Street, Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002 also at the Hindu Office, Kasthuri Buildings, No.859 & 860, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm ) 11 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
Ssk.
P.D. ORDER IN C.R.P.No.1767 of 2021 Delivered on 30.04.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 05:57:00 pm )