Madras High Court
Munusamy Nadar And Anr. vs Ganapathy Chettiar on 15 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)1MLJ403
ORDER K. Sampath, J.
1. These two revision petitions are filed by two tenants occupying portions of the same building against orders of eviction passed against them. The respondent landlord filed R. CO.P. No. 27 of 1992 against the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1752 of 1997 for eviction on the ground that he required the property for the immediate purpose of demolition and putting up a new building in the site. His case was as follows: The revision petitioner became his tenant in respect of a portion of the building and the monthly rent was Rs. 150. The building was nearly 100 years old. The flooring wall and the roof were in a most dilapidated condition and the building required im-mediate demolition and reconstruction. He wanted to put up a new construction with a view to augment his income. He had been calling upon the revision petitioner to vacate the building for the past over six months prior to the filing of the Rent Control Origi-nal Petition. The petitioner assured that he would vacate the premises in the Tamil month of Thai 1992, but for reasons best known to him, the petitioner had sent a sum of Rs. 200 as if the respondent had de-manded enhanced rent. On 20.2.1992, as the respondent issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to vacate the premises and handover possession. The petitioner though received the notice did not comply with the demand nor did he send any reply to the notice. The respondent had sufficient funds to put up the new construction.
2. The petitioner resisted the Rent Control Original Petition contending inter alia as follows:
He became a tenant in 1979 in respect of the property subject matter of the proceedings on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. The rent was being enhanced periodically and lastly the petitioner was paying Rs. 150 p. m. The respondent demanded an enhanced rent at Rs. 400 from January, 1992. The revision petitioner stated that his final order was Rs. 200 p. m. and sent the same by Money Order for the month of January, 1992. The respondent set a registered notice, dated 20.2.1992. The revision petitioner duly sent a reply on 25.2.1992 and the excess of Rs. 50 was adjusted in the rent for the month of January, 1992 and thereafter, the revision petitioner was continuing to pay at the rate of Rs. 150 p. m. The object of the respondent was only to extract higher rent from the revision petitioner. The building was structurally sound and did not require any demolition. Even though the respondent did not carry out the usual maintenance as he was bound to, the revision petitioner was spending out of his pocket doing the maintenance work at his own cost and keeping the building in a state of disrepair. The averment in the petition that the respondent wanted to augment his income by demolition and putting up a new building was not a ground for demolition under Section 14(1)(b). The revision petitioner never assured the respondent that he would vacate the building. The petition itself was only a ruse to throw out the revision petitioner and to sell the property for huge price. The application was not bona fide and admittedly no steps had been taken for putting up a new building. The means of the respondent was also disputed. The petitioner prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.
3. The facts in C.R.P. No. 1910 of 1997 are almost identical. It is not necessary to set out the details of the contentions of the respective parties. The respondent in both the revision petitions is the same. The building is a single building and portions were occupied by the respective revision petitioners. The Rent Controller by his order, dated 9.3.1995 accepted the case of the respondent-landlord in both the eviction petitions and ordered eviction. The petitioners filed R.C.A. Nos. 6 and 7 of 1995 respectively. The appellate authority also concurred with the decision of the Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction. Aggrieved, the present revision petitions have bene filed.
4. Mr. S. Ramamurthy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners in both the revisions contended that the three conditions essential for entitlement to an order of eviction namely means, condition of the building and bona fide requirement are not satisfied in the instant cases. The learned Counsel particularly stressed by the point relating to bona fide requirement. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme court in Netaram and Ors. v. Jeewanlal and Anr. ; Panchamal Narayan Shenoy v. Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy and Metalware & Company v. Bansilal .
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. A. Muthukumar sought to support the decision of the Authorities below by submitting that the means, condition of the building and bona fide requirement had been established satisfactorily and the decision of the Authorities below did not call for interference under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) as amended by Act 23 of 1973. The learned Counsel in support of his submissions relied on the decision in Bank of Baroda v. Mahendra Dadha (1982) 2 M.L.J. 85; Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. R. Raghavan and Sherwood Educational Society v. Abid Mamazie (1997) 1 M.L.J. 445 : (1997) 1 L.W. 323
6. The Rent Controller found that the very sending of Rs. 200 by the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1752 of 1997 showed that he was trying to create evidence as if the landlord was demanding enhanced rent. The Rent Controller relied on the report of the Commissioner, his oral evidence and also the admission of the revision petitioner. The portions in the possession of the tenants as already stated were part of the same building. There was seepage of water during rains. The building was of brick and mud-mortar. The age of the building as claimed by the respondent was not disputed by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner also said that he did not know whether the building was really required for demolition and reconstruction it is also pertinent to note that the respondent had also spoken to the fact that since the rent control proceedings would take a long time to terminate he would apply for sanction of plan after obtaining possession of the building. On the avail-ability of funds with the respondent-landlord for demolition and reconstruction, there was no dispute. Thus on the two requirements, namely the condition of the building and the means of the landlord, the Authorities below have correctly held that they were satisfied. I do not think that any exception can be taken to the decision by them.
7. On the question of bona fides, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner brought to my notice the order of the Appellate Authority in paragraph 10 to the following effect:
From this the learned Counsel wants the court to infer that it is a finding by the Appellate Authority and it is not supported by any evidence. On the contrary, Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that what is stated in paragraph 10 of the order of the Appellate Authority is only the contention of the respondent and it was not a finding by the appellate authority. I am also of the view that there is no finding as such by the appellate authority there was any demand by the respondent that the revision petitioners agreed to pay at the rate of Rs. 150 p. m. and that the respondent agreed to wait for three years. In my view, nothing turns on this. The recent trend of Authorities is that even assuming that the landlord had demanded enhanced rent, it could not mean that the owner was lacking in bona fide.
8. The first of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is Netaram Ram and Ors. v. Jeevanlal and Anr. . It has been held in that decision as follews:
The landlord must satisfy the Rent Controller about genuineness of his claim and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and so on. It is not enough that the landlord comes forward, and says that he enter-tains a particular intention, however, strongly, said to be entertained by him. It is not the bona fides of the landlord but the claim of the landlord that he requires the building for reconstruction and re-erection must be bona fide that is to say, hon-est in the circumstances. It is impossible therefore to hold that the investigation by the Controller should be confined only to the existence of an intention in the mind of the landlord to reconstruct. This intention must be honestly held in re-lation to the surrounding circumstances.
The Supreme Court decision arose under PEPSU Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance.
9. In Panchamal Narayan Shenoy v. Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy which arose under Mysore Rent Control Act, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
The requirement contemplated is that of the land-lord and it does not have any reference to the condition of the building as such. The landlord must satisfy the court that he reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is for the purpose of erecting a new building in the place of the old one. No doubt, whether the landlord's re-quirement is reasonable and bona fide has to be judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances, which will include his means for reconstruction of the building and other steps taken by him in that regard.
10. In Metalware & Co. v. Bansilal which arose under our Act, the Supreme Court had this to say, "Age and existing condition of building whether it is a recent construction or old and whether it is in a good and sound condition or has become decrepit or dilapidated are relevant factors forming part of all the circumstances that have to be considered while determining bona fide requirement. "
11. These authorities only say that the intention must be honestly held in relation to the surrounding circumstances. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the bona fides cannot be dis-associated from the two other criteria viz., means and condition of the building. In Bank of Baroda represented by its Chairman v. Mahendra Dadha and two others (1982) 2 M.L.J. 85 it has been held as follows:
When it is found as a question of fact the re-quirement for own occupation is a pressing necessity and clearly bona fide, the mere fact that before filing the eviction petition, the appellants have demanded enhanced rent for the petition building, cannot in any way militate against the bona fide of their requirement.
In that case, this Court set down the requirement to be satisfied to obtain possession of a non-residential building as follows:
1. A building should be non-residential in character.
2. The landlord should be carrying on business on the date of his applying for eviction.
3. The landlord should not be occupying any other non-residential building belonging to him for the purpose of his business.
4. The landlord's claim is bona fide for his business needs and not based on oblique motives like trying to obtain more rent or to harass the tenant.
12. In Brooke Bond India Ltd. represented by Area Sales Manager v. R. Raghavan where the tenant alleged that he refused to pay enhanced rent and therefore, the landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of occupation for his business, it was held that the demand for en-hanced rent would not show that demand for eviction was not in good faith.
13. In Sherwood Educational Society v. Abid Namazie and Ors. (1997) 1 L.W. 323 Subramani, J. held as follows:
The law is settled that in considering bona fide, it is not the intention of the landlord that has to be considered, but the proof must be, the genuine-ness of the claim. That is proved by establishing the surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation the possibility of its being put to more profitable use, the means of the landlord and so on. The intention, must be honest, and in relating to surrounding circumstances.
It is also brought to my notice that one of the tenants said that the demand for enhanced rent by the respondent was known to the other tenant and when the other tenant was confronted with that, he said that he did not know about it.
14. Thus all the criteria for invoking Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are satisfied and the decision reached by the Authorities below is in order. In spite of the wide language employed in Section 25 I do not find that there is anything that has been missed by the Authorities below in ordering eviction. In view of the discussion above, the civil revision petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. The revision petitioner in each of the revision petitions is granted three months time to vacate the premises. In view of the disposal of the revision petitions, C.M.P. Nos. 9150 and 9682 of 1997 are dismissed.