Madras High Court
Varadhan vs Kannammal on 27 April, 2004
Author: T.V. Masilamani
Bench: T.V. Masilamani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 27/04/2004
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice T.V. MASILAMANI
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3067 of 1998
Varadhan .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Kannammal
2. Kullammal alias Santhammal
3. Boologammal
4. S.Babu Ammal
5. Kannan .. Respondents
Civil Revision Petition against the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1
998 in R.C.A.No.8 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority
(Subordindate Judge), Ranipet confirming the fair and decretal orders dated
9.8.1995 passed in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller
(District Munsif), Ranipet.
!For Petitioners : Mr.A.Seshan
^For Respondent-1 : Mr.P.Gururamachandran
:O R D E R
This revision petition is preferred by the tenant/second respondent before the Rent Controller and appellant in the Rent Control Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.8 of 1995 dated 30.6.1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Ranipet confirming the fair and decretal orders passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ranipet in R.C.O.P. No.25 of 1990 dated 9.8.1995.
2. The parties to the revision petition may be referred to in the same order as they were arrayed in the Courts below for the sake of convenience.
3. The landlady/petitioner filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease and Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Tamil Nadu Act 1 8 of 1960) for eviction of the tenants/respondents on the grounds that after the death of the original tenant, the first respondent, there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the second respondent, son of the deceased first respondent in respect of the demised premises, that the petition premises is required as an additional accommodation for running the hotel business of the petitioner, that the petitioner's husband was running the hotel in the building bearing Door No.6, Arcot Road which was not sufficient for the purpose of the hotel business, that the petition premises situate at about 100 feet from the hotel premises is required as an additional accommodation and that since the respondents committed act of waste in the petition premises, they are liable to be evicted from the same.
4. The tenants/respondents have resisted the petition on various grounds pleading inter alia that the second respondent was none else than the son of the first respondent (since deceased), that he was helping his father in running the business of manufacturing soft drinks in the petition premises, that he continued to run the business even after his father, first respondent, that the respondents have not committed any act of waste as alleged in the petition, and that the alleged requirement of the petition premises as an additional accommodation to run the business of the petitioner is not bona fide.
5. The learned Rent Controller having analysed the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on either side and upon hearing the arguments allowed the petition granting two months' time for the tenants/ respondents to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by the fair and decretal orders of the Rent Controller, the respondents/tenants preferred appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority who having heard both sides dismissed the appeal confirming the orders passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the revision.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued at the outset that even at the inception, the rent control proceedings was not maintainable in the eye of law and that therefore, the decisions rendered by both the Courts below are not sustainable in law and therefore liable to be set aside. He has drawn my attention to the provision under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 in support of his further contention that the claim of the landlady is unsustainable in law for the simple reason that under the said provision of law, she cannot maintain the petition for eviction of the tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement for additional accommodation for running the hotel business because admittedly the hotel premises is situate at Door No.40, Arcot Road in a separate building at a distance of about 100 feet.
7. Similarly he has pointed out the evidence of the landlady as P.W.1 that the premises where she is running the hotel belonged to Perumal Temple Devasthanam, even though there was no rental agreement entered into between her and the said Devasthanam in respect of the said premises. It is therefore urged by the petitioner's counsel that the premises as described in the petition measuring 7 feet in width at the entrance, 13 feet in the rear side and 23-1/2 feet in length would be hardly sufficient to run a hotel and that the claim of the landlady for eviction of the tenant under the provision (vide) Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 is not bona fide.
8. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for both sides, it is necessary to extract the provision of Sections 10(3)(a)iii and 10(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 as follows:-
"10(3)(a). A 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.
(i) ... ... ...
(ii) ... ... ...
(iii) In case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on, a nonresidential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own."
"10(3)(c). A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, may, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes of or purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be."
(Emphasis added by this Court)
9. The admitted factual position of both parties is that the landlady/petitioner does not own any other non residential building of her own in Kalavai Town where the petition premises is situate and similarly, it is not disputed that the landlady/petitioner is not facing any threat of eviction at the hands of the said Devasthanam, landlord of the premises where she is running the hotel business. It is therefore urged by the learned counsel appearing on the side of the tenants that the petition ought to have been filed only under Section 10(3)( c) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 for additional accommodation and that since the ground urged on the basis of the provision under Section 10 (3)(a)(iii) of the said Act is not satisfied, the orders passed by the Courts below are not legally sustainable.
10. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant has relied on the decision HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v. SARAVANAN (1997 (2) M.L.J. 32) for the position that the claim of the landlady under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the said Act is not maintainable as she has laid the petition for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation which could be prayed for only under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and therefore he has urged that the petition for eviction of the revision petitioner from the demised premises is not maintainable in law.
11. A careful reading of the said decision would disclose that the provision under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act would apply only if the building is occupied by both the landlord and the tenant and then only the claim of the landlord for additional accommodation is maintainable. In this context, he has urged that since the landlady is occupying a different premises for running the hotel business, her claim for additional accommodation in respect of the demised premises situate far away is not maintainable. It is no doubt true that Section 10(3)(c) contemplates that both the landlord and tenant must occupy the same building so as to maintain the claim for additional accommodation under that provision of law.
12. In answer to such contention put forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/landlady has cited the decision rendered by PRATAP SINGH, J. (as he then was) in ATHIMOOLAM v. AROKIANATHAN (1993-1-L.W. 663) in support of his contention that the language of Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act does not contemplate that the landlord must carry on the business in the same premises where the demised premises is situate and therefore he has urged that the petition is maintainable in law.
13. The proposition of law set out in para (9) therein lays down the dictum as follows:
"The requirement contemplated in the above said section came up for consideration before this Court on several occasions. In R.M.SOLAI NADAR v. A.T.A.V.GURUSWAMI NADAR AND CO. (1969 (I) M.L.J. 629), four ingredients of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) were set out. They are (a) the landlord requires the premises (2) that such requirement is for purposes of a business which the landlord or his son is carrying on (3) that such a requirement is bona fide and (4) he is not occupying another building of his own in the same city, town or village in which the suit premises is situate. In the instant case, all the aforesaid four ingredients are available. In that case, the business that was being carried on was at Dindigul. The requirement was for the building situated at Madras for the purpose of the business. That was upheld. The language of the said section does not warrant an interpretation that the business carried on by the landlord must be in the place where the building required is situated."
14. Similarly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has cited the decision, MEENATCHI SUNDARAM AND ANOTHER v. GOTHAMRAJ JAIN (1994 T.N.L.J. 223) in support of his contention that Section 10(3)(a) of the said Act can be invoked only if the landlord is occupying a building which is not his own and Section 10(3)(c) of the said Act is applicable only to cases where the landlord is occupying a building which is his own. Hence, he has urged that the landlady can claim the petition premises for additional accommodation only if she is occupying the portion of the same building for running the hotel business.
15. In the said decision, 1994 T.N.L.J. 223, M.SRINIVASAN, J. (as he then was) after considering various precedents on the question of law with reference to Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 observed as follows:-
"Thus, as pointed out earlier, Section 10(3)(a) will come into play only if the landlord is occupying a building which is not his own and Section 10(3)(c) would apply only in case where the landlord is occupying a building which is his own. Under Section 10(3)(c), the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a)" is very significant."
Hence, it is urged on the part of the 1st respondent/landlady by the learned counsel that in this case also, the landlady does not occupy her own non-residential building for running the hotel and that therefore she requires the petition premises bona fide (vide) the ingredients laid under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960.
16. On a careful consideration of the decision 1993-1-L.W. 663 referred supra, this Court is of the considered view that all the four ingredients under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) are satisfied in this case also and therefore it follows necessarily that the petition filed by the 1 st respondent/landlady for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 is legally sustainable. In view of such legal position, I am unable to accept the contention put forth on behalf of the tenant/revision petitioner herein that the landlady is precluded from laying the claim under the said provision of law for the simple reason that she has also filed the petition under Section 10(3 )(c) of the said Act.
17. Yet another contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that since the petition premises is not spacious enough, the requirement of the same by the 1st respondent/ landlady for running the hotel business is not bona fide. He has also drawn my attention to the evidence adduced on either side in support of his further contention that the open space available in the rear portion of the hotel building is sufficient enough to have additional accommodation to expand the business and that therefore on that ground also, the requirement of the petition premises is not bona fide.
18. In this context, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ landlady has relied on the judgment of this Court rendered by Dr.AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. (as he then was), in R.SRINIVASAN AND ANOTHER v. K.S. MUTHU MUDALIAR AND SONS (1996 T.N.L.J. 364) in support of his contention that the tenant cannot dictate terms that the area which is required by way of additional accommodation is not sufficient for the purpose of business of the landlord and that the premises in the occupation of the tenant is sufficient to run the business. On a careful reading of the said decision, I am of the considered view that in this case also, the minimum space of the petition premises is no ground for the revision petitioner/tenant to contend that the requirement of the petition premises by the 1st respondent/landlady is not bona fide. Hence, on this aspect of the mater also, I find that the revision petitioner/tenant has to fail.
19. For the reasons stated above, the concurrent finding of facts rendered by the Courts below supported by the legal precedents laid down in the decisions referred supra, have to be affirmed. It follows necessarily that the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and upheld by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has to be confirmed.
20. Thus, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The revision petitioner /tenant is given three months' time to vacate the property subject to condition that he files an affidavit within ten days from today giving an unconditional undertaking that he will vacate the property on or before 26-7-2004 failing which the 1st respondent/landlady will be at liberty to execute the order of eviction. However, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Index: Yes Website: Yes dpp To
1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordindate Judge), Ranipet.
2. The Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ranipet.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.