Madras High Court
Mr.P.Kasirajan vs Chennai Otteri Vattara Nadar Sangam
Author: G.Chandrasekharan
Bench: G.Chandrasekharan
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders reserved on Orders pronounced on
03.09.2021 28.09.2021
Coram
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019
C.R.P.(NPD) No.509 of 2019
Mr.P.Kasirajan
Otteri Vattara Nadar Thirumana Maligai
No.9, Thiru-vi-ka Street
Otteri, Chennai – 600 012. ... Petitioner / tenant
Vs
Chennai Otteri Vattara Nadar Sangam
represented by its Secretary
Mr.S.P.Mariappan
No.6/29, Rathina Sabapathy Street
Purasawakkam
Chennai – 600 007. ... Respondent / landlord
C.R.P.(NPD) No.509 of 2019 is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act to set aside the Judgment and
Decree dated 27.11.2018 made in RCA No.669 of 2017 by the learned VIII
Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai
1/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019
confirming the Fair and Decreetal order dated 05.09.2017 in RCOP
No.1602 of 2015 on the file of the XI Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small
Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner in
C.R.P.(NPD) No.509 of 2019 .. M/s.Gopalakrishnan
For Respondent in
C.R.P.(NPD) No.509 of 2019 .. Mr.M.K.Hidayathullah
for
M/s.Sureshbabu
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3744 of 2019
Chennai Otteri Vattara Nadar Sangam
represented by its Secretary
Mr.S.P.Mariappan
No.9, Thiru-vi-ka Street
Otteri, Chennai – 600 012. ... Petitioner / landlord
Vs
Mr.P.Kasirajan
Chennai Otteri Vattara Nadar Thirumana Maligai
No.9, Thiru-vi-ka Street
Otteri, Chennai – 600 012. ... Respondent / tenant
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3744 of 2019 is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act to set aside the Judgment and
Decree dated 24.04.2019 made in RCA No.259 of 2015 by the learned VII
Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai
2/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019
reversing the Fair and Decreetal order dated 06.04.2015 in RCOP No.595 of
2013 on the file of the XV Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
For Petitioner in
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3744 of 2019 .. Mr.M.K.Hidayathullah
for
M/s.Sureshbabu
For Respondent in
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3744 of 2019 .. M/s.Gopalakrishnan
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3747 of 2019
Chennai Otteri Vattara Nadar Sangam
represented by its Secretary
Mr.S.P.Mariappan
No.9, Thiru-vi-ka Street
Otteri, Chennai – 600 012. ... Petitioner / landlord
Vs
Mr.P.Kasirajan
Chennai Otteri Vattara Nadar Thirumana Maligai
No.9, Thiru-vi-ka Street
Otteri, Chennai – 600 012. ... Respondent / tenant
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3747 of 2019 is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act to set aside the Judgment and
Decree dated 24.04.2019 made in RCA No.257 of 2015 by the learned VII
3/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019
Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai
reversing the Fair and Decreetal order dated 20.03.2015 in RCOP No.2500
of 2012 on the file of the X Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
For Petitioner in
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3747 of 2019 .. Mr.M.K.Hidayathullah
for
M/s.Sureshbabu
For Respondent in
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3747 of 2019 .. M/s.Gopalakrishnan
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3748 of 2019
Chennai Otteri Vattara Nadar Sangam
represented by its Secretary
Mr.S.P.Mariappan
No.9, Thiru-vi-ka Street
Otteri, Chennai – 600 012. ... Petitioner / landlord
Vs
Mr.P.Kasirajan
Chennai Otteri Vattara Nadar Thirumana Maligai
No.9, Thiru-vi-ka Street
Otteri, Chennai – 600 012. ... Respondent / tenant
4/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3748 of 2019 is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act to set aside the Judgment and
Decree dated 24.04.2019 made in RCA No.258 of 2015 by the learned VII
Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai
reversing the Fair and Decreetal order dated 20.03.2015 in RCOP No.2500
of 2012 on the file of the X Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
For Petitioner in
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3748 of 2019 .. Mr.M.K.Hidayathullah
for
M/s.Sureshbabu
For Respondent in
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3748 of 2019 .. M/s.Gopalakrishnan
COMMON ORDER
C.R.P.(PD) No.509 of 2019 was filed by tenant against the judgment passed in RCA No.669 of 2017 confirming the order passed in RCOP No.1602 of 2015 on the file of the XI Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
5/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019
2. C.R.P.(PD) No.3744 of 2019 was filed by landlord against the judgment passed in RCA No.259 of 2015 reversing the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP No.595 of 2013 on the file of the XV Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
3. C.R.P.(PD) Nos.3747 and 3748 of 2019 have been filed by landlord against the judgments passed in RCA Nos.257 of 2015 and 258 of 2015 respectively reversing the order passed in RCOP No.2500 of 2012 on the file of the X Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
4. The landlord filed RCOP No.2500 of 2012 against the tenant under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act for fixing fair rent to the tenanted premises. The tenanted premises situate in Door No.9, Thiru.Vi.Ka Street, Otteri, Chennai. This premises was let out to the tenant for the purpose of running Thirumana Maligai for the benefit of members of their society, namely, Chennai Otteri Vattara Nadar Sangam. This premises situates in important location surrounded by marriage halls, 6/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 cinema theatres, multi-storied buildings, churches, hotels, nursing homes, bus stops and other commercial establishments. The land value costs not less that Rs.80,00,000/- per ground. The present rent paid at Rs.21,000/- is very low compared to the market value of the rental value. The fair rent comes to Rs.98,400/- per month and therefore, this petition was filed.
5. The tenant denied the averments made in the petition. It is the case of the tenant that the rent was Rs.21,000/- per month till 2013 and from 2013 to 2016, the rent was fixed at Rs.23,000/-. The tenant is one of the members of the landlord Sangam. The building is surrounded by slum dwelling houses. The landlord is a charitable institution and the mandapam was constructed for the charitable purpose and therefore, the rent for the thirumana mandapam is very less than other mandapams located in the area. There is political influence and therefore, it is very hard to run the mandapam. The landlord has been instituting various proceedings before the Rent Controller and before Civil Court only to harass the tenant, with a view to evict him. It is claimed by the landlord that rent is fixed for the 7/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 building and for vessels. Therefore, the Rent Control Court is not a competent court to entertain the RCOP Petition. The calculation given in the petition is inflated to make an artificial increase in the fair rent. There is no merits in the petition.
6. The landlord filed another petition in RCOP No.595 of 2013 under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act for evicting the tenant alleging that the tenanted premises was let out to non-residential purpose of running a kalyana mandapam. Contrary to the terms of agreement, the tenant is living in the premises with his family. Therefore, he is liable to be evicted on the ground of different user. The tenanted premises is required for the purpose of running thirumana maligai by the landlord. Therefore, the building is required for owner's occupation. This petition was contested by the tenant alleging that this petition is yet another attempt to evict the tenant. The tenant was working as a Manager under one A.Palanisami Nadar, who was previously running thirumana maligai on lease in this premises. As a 8/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 manager, he was residing in the tenanted premises from 1997. Palanisami Nadar could not run the mandapam from 2005 and therefore, he has become directly a tenant under the landlord. It is not correct to say that the building is used for a different purpose. Initially landlord was running the kalyana mandapam. They found it is not feasible because the overhead expenses more than the income derived. Therefore, they let the premises on lease to Mr.A.Palanisami Nadar and then to the present tenant. Tenant has invested lot of money in the mandapam and running the mandapam under difficult situation. This petition is filed only with a view to evict the tenant from the premises and the requirement for own occupation is not bonafide. Since the rent is split between building and vessels, eviction petition cannot be maintained before the Rent Controller.
7. Third petition filed by the landlord against the tenant is RCOP No.1602 of 2015 under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. The case of the landlord is that the landlord filed RCOP Nos.2500 of 2012 and 595 of 2013 against the tenant. Fair rent was 9/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 fixed at Rs.96,346/- per month in RCOP No.2500 of 2012 and eviction was ordered in RCOP No.595 of 2013 on the ground of owner's occupation. The tenant filed RCOP No.1915 of 2012 under Section 8(5) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act to deposit the rent. This petition was allowed directing the tenant to deposit rent from July 2012 to March 2013 and continue to deposit the rents for ensuing months on or before 15 th of English calendar month. Tenant deposited the rent till October 2014 and thereafter, did not deposit the rent. He was irregular in depositing the rent. At the time of filing the petition, there was an arrears of rent from April 2015 to August 2015, amounting to Rs.1,05,000/- Therefore, the petition was filed for evicting the tenant on the ground of wilful default. The tenant contested this petition, alleging that there is no arrears muchless wilful arrears. Landlord is in possession of huge amount as advance amount to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. The landlord cannot keep more than one month's rent as advance amount. The landlord has deliberately not paid sewerage and water taxes. The tenant had to necessarily pay these taxes. The aforesaid taxes are not paid with an intention to force the tenant to vacate 10/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 the premises. The tax amount paid by the tenant should be given credit and then deducted from the rent. The landlord Sangam is registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1925 and the building is exempted under Section 29 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. The landlord Sangam was established for the cause of public and it is a public trust and therefore, Rent Control Proceedings is not maintainable. The landlord has deliberately omitted to file the bylaws. There is no default and the petition is not maintainable.
8. During enquiry before the learned Rent Controller, in RCOP No.2500 of 2012, PW.1, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined; Exs.P1 to P6 and Exs.R1 to R11 had been marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidence produced and rival submissions made, learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and fixed the fair rent at Rs.96,346/- per month.
9. In RCOP No.595 of 2013, PW.1 and RW.1 to RW.3 were examined. Exs.P1 to P9 and Exs.R1 to R29 were marked. On considering 11/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 the oral and documentary evidence produced, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition in part ordering eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and dismissing the claim made under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act.
10. In RCOP No.1602 of 2015, PW.1 and RW.1 were examined. Exs.P1 to P6 and Exs.R1 to R9 were marked. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had committed wilful default and ordered eviction.
11. The tenant preferred RCA No.669 of 2017 against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP No.1602 of 2015. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority concurred with the finding of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the Rent Control Appeal. The tenant preferred RCA No.259 of 2015 against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP No.595 of 2013.
12. Landlord filed RCA No.257 of 2015 for enhancement of fair rent fixed and the tenant filed RCA No.258 of 2015 against the fair rent 12/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 fixed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP No.2500 of 2012. RCA Nos. 257 of 2015, 258 of 2015 and 259 of 2015 have been taken up for consideration and common judgment was pronounced on 24.09.2019.
13. The main issue raised in these RCAs is that whether the eviction petitions can be maintained under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. The reason for raising the issue of maintainability in the appeals before the appellate Court is that there was a contention raised by the tenant that the lease agreement concerned in this case does not confine only to the building, but also vessels and other articles in the building; it is not an independent lease in respect of the building, but a composite lease for the building, vessels and other articles; when it is a composite lease and the lease was made for running the business, there is a bar under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act to maintain eviction proceedings under the Act. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, on hearing the submissions made by the parties on this aspect, found that the lease involved in this case is a composite lease and therefore, 13/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act will not be applicable to the tenanted premises. In this view of the matter, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed RCA No.257 of 2015 and allowed RCA Nos.258 of 2015 and 259 of 2015. Against the judgments passed in these RCAs, the landlord has preferred C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3747, 3748 and 3744 of 2019 respectively. The tenant has preferred C.R.P.(PD) No.509 of 2019 against the judgment passed in RCA No.669 of 2017. Thus, these four matters are before this Court.
14. Heard both. Learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord in CRP (NPD) Nos.3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 submitted that it is seen from the rental agreement that separate amount had been fixed for building, vessels and other articles. Accordingly, separate receipts had been issued. The amount fixed for vessels and other articles are to be considered only as hire charges. So both are independent transactions and therefore, the lease agreement cannot be considered as a composite lease agreement. The primary object for leasing the premises was to run a kalyana mandapam. 14/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 The building was let out only for the purpose of running kalyana mandapam. Vessels and other articles were given to the tenant as incidental or annexure for the purpose of running the kalyana mandapam. At any stretch of imagination, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord that the lease cannot be considered as composite lease. The landlord will not come within the purview of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Registration Act, 1983 and therefore, the exemption under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act is not attracted to the landlord Sangam. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord submitted that the tenant was irregular in paying rent, even after filing a petition for depositing the rent in the court under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. The wilful default was clearly made out and therefore, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction and that was rightly confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.
15. Insofar as the petitions filed for fixation of fair rent and for 15/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 eviction on the ground of owner's occupation, learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord submitted that the learned Rent Controller has rightly fixed fair rent and ordered eviction on the ground of owner's occupation. Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has dismissed the Rent Control Original Petitions and allowed the Rent Control Appeals, not on merits of the case, but on the ground of maintainability of Rent Control Original Petitions under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. This aspect was not raised before the Rent Controller, therefore, this issue could not have been taken up by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. As already stated, there is no composite lease and the landlord Sangam does not come under the purview of society, there is no legal impediment for maintaining the petition under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. However, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has not considered the issue in RCA Nos.257 of 2015, 258 of 2015 and 259 of 2015 in proper perspective and allowed the appeals and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order of learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and for dismissal of these Civil Revision Petitions. On the same breath, he 16/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 prayed for confirming the judgment of learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.669 of 2017 and for dismissal of CRP No.509 of 2019.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted that the tenant has raised the issue of maintainability on the ground of composite lease in the counter filed in RCOP Nos.2500 of 2012 and 595 of 2013. The ground that the landlord Sangam is exempted from the purview of this Act was also raised in the counter filed in RCOP No.1602 of 2015. However, the learned Rent Controller has not decided the issue properly in RCOP No.1602 of 2015 and the issue of maintainability on the ground of composite lease was not at all considered by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP Nos.2500 of 2012 and 595 of 2013. However, learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has considered the maintainability of petition under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act on the ground that the lease involved in this case is a composite lease and finding that the lease is a composite lease, found that the proceedings cannot be initiated under Tamil 17/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act and allowed the Appeals.
17. He further submitted that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has not considered the maintainability of proceedings under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act properly, but confirmed the order of eviction based on the ground of wilful default. The question of law with regard to the maintainability of petition under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act can be raised first time even in the appeal. It has been so held in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1979) 3 SCC 280 (Tarini Kamal Pandit and others ..vs.. Prafulla Kumar Chatterjee (dead) by LRs.). It is held in the judgment reported in CDJ 2018 MHC 1773 (M/s.Raghunath Engineering Company represented by its partner Jawaharnath and others ..vs.. K.Ganesan and others) and in the judgment of this Court in S.A.Nos.740 and 741 of 1999 in the case of Lakshmikanthan ..vs.. L.S.Gani Mohamed) that in the case of composite lease, the proceedings under Rent Control Act cannot be maintained. It is clearly established from the terms of lease that 18/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 the lease in question is a composite lease and therefore, the proceedings under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act cannot be entertained. The society/sangam also cannot maintain the proceedings under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act as it is exempted under Section 29 of the Act. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant prayed for confirming the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA Nos.257 of 2015, 258 of 2015 and 259 of 2015 and for reversing the judgment in RCA No.669 of 2017.
18. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
19. The main points for the consideration of this Court are two, (1) whether the lease involved in this case is a composite lease, if so whether the rent control proceedings initiated by the landlord can be maintained under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act.
(2) if the lease involved in this case is not a 19/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 composite lease, whether the order of eviction based on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation is correct and whether the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller is correct.
If the first point is decided in favour of the tenant, then the next point need not be decided. Only if the first point is decided in favour of the landlord, the next point has to be decided.
20. To decide whether the lease involved in this case is a composite lease or a lease in respect of building alone, it is necessary to understand what is meant by composite lease.
'Composite lease' is a collective or mixture of lease containing distinct/different properties/parts. Composite lease consists of separate lease agreement between the landlord and tenant with respect to property (1) and property (2) and all provisions thereof shall be applicable separately to each property, with the same effect as if it was a separate lease with respect thereto have been executed and delivered by landlord and tenant. Now, we 20/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 have to turn the lease agreement to find out whether the lease in question is a composite lease or not. The copies of lease agreement dated 01.04.2005, 03.02.2007 and 04.11.2009 are produced for the perusal of this court. The terms of lease dated 01.04.2005 show that the premises was let out for running a thirumana mandapam at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month as rent. Three month's rent ie., Rs.36,000/- was deposited as advance and a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- was deposited as security deposit. The tenant agreed to run the premises as a kalyana mandapam in the same name of Otteri Vattara Nadar Sangam Thirumana Maligai. Along with the building, he agreed to take the vessels and other articles for the purpose of organising marriage. A separate list is prepared with regard to the vessels and other articles. The tenant agreed to hand over the building, vessels and other articles in good condition at the time of vacating the premises and he had also agreed to deduct for the damage, if any caused. Similar terms are included in the lease deeds dated 03.02.2007 and 04.11.2009 with slight modifications. In the lease deed dated 03.02.2007, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.4,500/- for marriage hall and Rs.7,500/- for vessels and other articles. In the lease 21/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 deed dated 04.11.2009, monthly rent was fixed at Rs.5000/- for marriage hall and Rs.12,000/- for vessels and other articles. Separate receipts for marriage hall, vessels and other articles had been issued. The bare reading of this agreement clearly shows that this agreement was executed not for the building alone, but for the vessels and other articles as well. It is plain and clear that these lease deeds are composite lease deeds covering the building, vessels and other articles.
21. Section 30 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act exempted certain categories of building from the purview of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. Section 30(iii) exempts '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.'
22. It is an admitted fact that the tenanted premise is owned by the landlord sangam and the sangam was using the tenanted premises as 22/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 thirumana mandapam. The tenant was working as a Manager with one Palanisami Nadar, who was running the thirumana mandapam as a tenant under the landlord. Palanisami surrendered the tenancy and the present tenant had become tenant under the landlord for using the tenanted premises as thirumana mandapam. As narrated above, the terms of the lease agreement clearly show that the lease was inclusive of building, vessels and other articles. The intention of both the landlord and tenant was to lease the building, vessels and other articles for the purpose of running thirumana mandapam. This petition mentioned premises is clearly exempted under Section 30(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act.
23. It has been held in CDJ 2018 MHC 1773 (M/s.Raghunath Engineering Company represented by its partner Jawaharnath and others ..vs.. K.Ganesan and others) as follows:-
“7. A reading of the said Section and explanation (2) makes it clear that when the building along with the machineries are leased out to the tenants, the provision of Rent Control Act is not applicable. The respondents in 23/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 para-5 of the petition filed in R.C.O.P. as well as schedule to the petition have clearly stated that the lease is for machineries also. One of the grounds for eviction sought is act of wastage of machineries. This clearly shows that the lease is composite lease of land and building and machineries. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are also owners of the machineries and therefore, lease is not composite lease, is without merits. Admittedly, the petitioners 1 and 2 are having 1/2 share in the machineries and the respondents have leased out their 1/2 share only to the petitioners 1 and 2. The lease is granted for land, building and machineries for running an industry. The lease is for running industry as going concern with the machineries mentioned in the petition.
In view of the admitted fact, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the lease is composite lease and provision of Rent Control Act is not applicable, has considerable force. ...........”
24. It has been held in S.A.Nos.740 and 741 of 1999 in the case of Lakshmikanthan ..vs.. L.S.Gani Mohamed) as follows:- 24/31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 “16. It has come out in evidence that respondents have filed an application under Rent Control Act and on the contention of appellants same was dismissed on the ground that it is a composite lease and Rent Control Act will not apply in view of the exemption under Section 30 of the Act. It is thereafter landlord filed the civil suit to get possession of the building from the appellants. To prove that it is composite lease, Ex.A7 has been marked in the lower court which shows that the building was let by the fixtures furnitures etc. with the object of tenant to run business. It could be seen from Ex.A7 that along with 24 rooms, all the furnitures for necessary use of those rooms was also let to the appellants. Both the courts concurrently found that Ex.A7 is valid and executed by the defendants. To hold that Ex.A7 is valid, prior correspondence between parties also is to be taken into consideration. Once Ex.A7 is held to be genuine, the only conclusion that is possible is that it is composite lease.”
25. The aforesaid rulings support the view that Rent Control Act is not applicable to composite lease. The question of law not involving any investigation of facts can be raised for the first time even before the Hon'ble 25/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 Supreme Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly decided that the proceedings initiated by the landlord under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act cannot be maintained for the reason that the lease involved is a composite lease. Though this issue was not considered by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.669 of 2017, as said above, the issue can be raised in the Civil Revision Petition, and therefore, raised now. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by filing RCOP No.1602 of 2015 should also fail.
26. As regards the issue that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act is not applicable to societies, the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord submitted that the petitioner Sangam is not a society registered under Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act.
27. Learned counsel for the tenant submits that the landlord society is a registered society and it has its By-law. Clauses 3(3), 3(6), 3(9) of By- 26/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 law show that object of the trust is also to help the public without any discrimination on the basis of caste and religion. Government of Tamil Nadu exempted the co-operative societies from all the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act vide G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home dated 16.08.1976 CNo.II/27/HO/6060/76. Therefore, this Court finds that landlord sangam is not entitled to maintain this petition. Learned counsel for the landlord relied on the judgment reported in 2010 (2) MWN (Civil) 644 (S.Jesudoss ..vs.. A.P.Ramachandran), 1999 (1) CTC 146 (Ayyamperumal ..vs.. Shaik Dawood Rowther), 1999(1) CTC 555 (M.Arumugham ..vs.. Alagammai Achi) decided under Sections 10 and 8 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. Since there is no occasion has arisen to consider the second point, these judgments are not considered.
28. Thus, this Court finds that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly found in RCA Nos.257 of 2015, 258 of 2015 and 259 of 2015 that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act is not 27/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 applicable to the tenanted premises and therefore, the Rent Control Original Petitions in RCOP Nos.2500 of 2012 and 595 of 2013 have to be dismissed. This same proposition applies to the proceedings initiated in RCOP No.1602 of 2015. In view of the fact that the Rent Control Act is not applicable to the tenanted premises, it is not necessary to take up the second point for consideration. Therefore, the judgment of learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.669 of 2017 is set aside and RCOP No.1602 of 2015 is dismissed.
29. Resultantly,
(i) C.R.P.(NPD) No.509 of 2019 is allowed and judgment and decree passed in RCA No.669 of 2017 is set aside and RCA No.669 of 2017 is allowed and RCOP No.1602 of 2015 is dismissed.
(ii) C.R.P.(NPD) No.3744 of 2019 is dismissed and the judgment and decree passed in RCA No.259 of 2015 is confirmed and RCOP No.595 of 2013 is dismissed.
28/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019
(iii) C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.3747 and 3748 of 2019 are dismissed and common judgment and decree passed in RCA Nos.257 of 2015 and 258 of 2015 respectively are confirmed and RCOP No.2500 of 2012 is dismissed.
(iv) No costs.
(v) Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
mra 28.09.2021
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
To,
1. The VIII Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes Chennai.
2. The VII Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes Chennai.
3. The XI Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
29/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019
4. The XV Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
5. The X Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
30/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
mra Pre-delivery order in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.509, 3744, 3747 and 3748 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.3327 of 2019 in CRP (NPD) No.509 of 2019 28.09.2021 31/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/