Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 116 (MAD)

L. Puttalingam v. L. Sivalingam

2000-01-31

S.S.SUBRAMANI

body2000
ORDER: Tenant in R.C.O.P No.59 of 1993, on the file of Rent Controller, Ootacamund, is the revision petitioner. 2. Landlord sought eviction of the tenant on two grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. 3. Regarding the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, the finding of the Rent controller was against the landlord, and the same was not pursued before the Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller found that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction, and therefore ordered eviction. 4. Though the matter was taken in appeal by the tenant before the Appellate Authority, the same was not successful. The concurrent judgments are assailed in this revision under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act. 5. The Rent Controller relied on Exs.P-1 to P-7, Exs.R-1 to R-4 and the Commissioner’s Report and Engineer’s Exs.C-1 and C-2, apart from the oral evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1, to hold that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. 6. Exs.C-1 and C-2 will show the age of the building and its present physical condition. from the report, it could be seen that the building is more than 50 years old, and the walls are constructed with mud and other poor materials. It is also seen from the report that a portion of the building has already collapsed, and the building is in a dangerous condition. Both the Courts below have accepted the report. In fact, Ex.C-2 is a Report of the Engineer who assisted the Commissioner in filing the report Ex.C-1. 7. Regarding the financial position of the landlord, an argument was taken by the learned Counsel that the same was not pleaded, and the authorities below have also not taken into consideration any part of the pleadings. I do not think that there is any merit in the said submission. While considering the bona fides of the claim naturally, one of the points to be considered is, whether the landlord has got sufficient means or capacity to raise funds for putting a new construction. The matter was agitated before the Rent Controller; witnesses were examined, and the tenant was also given opportunity to rebut the evidence. 8. The effect of lack of pleadings came for consideration in the decision reported in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani, (1999)1 S.C.C. 141 . The matter was agitated before the Rent Controller; witnesses were examined, and the tenant was also given opportunity to rebut the evidence. 8. The effect of lack of pleadings came for consideration in the decision reported in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani, (1999)1 S.C.C. 141 . That case arose under the Delhi Rent Control Act. In that case, the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for own occupation. The relevant portion of the Section under the Delhi Act provided that the landlord can claim eviction only if he does not have any other suitable residential building. There is no pleading in the eviction petition as to whether the landlord was in possession or not of any other alternate accommodation. At the same time, the tenant proved that on the date of eviction petition, landlord was in possession of another accommodation and the same was surrendered. In view of the lack of pleadings, Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. The matter was taken before the High Court. The High Court negatived the plea of the tenant and allowed the eviction petition. The decision of the High Court was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in that decision. their Lordships held that if eviction is to be ordered on satisfaction of requirements of law, the question would not necessarily depend only on the pleadings. It could be a good defence, and the matter could be decided even without reference to pleadings. The decision of the High Court was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in that decision. their Lordships held that if eviction is to be ordered on satisfaction of requirements of law, the question would not necessarily depend only on the pleadings. It could be a good defence, and the matter could be decided even without reference to pleadings. In paragraphs 8 to 11, their Lordships have held thus: "Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Advocate in his reply submitted that the power of revision includes correction of errors of law and on occasions would include intervention of findings of facts where the right of a party is involved which is conferred on a party, that when the bona fide requirements of the landlord was established, the fact that there was suppression of a certain fact becomes extraneous; that the trial Court having taken into consideration the accommodation available in the subzi mandi premises came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide, but even so it came to the conclusion that the suppression would not affect the case at all; that pleas are raised in order to put the other party on notice and when the other party is already in the knowledge of such information, the relevance of the lack of pleadings is of no effect; that ascertainment of facts for the purpose of finding whether requirements is bona fide or not is a matter of detail and that exercise has been done in this case. Therefore he submitted relying on the decisions in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies, (1996)5 S.C.C. 344 and Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chandar, (1988)3 S.C.C. 131 , that the view taken by the High Court must be upheld. Sec.14(1)(e) of the Act reads as follows: "Sec.14(1)(e). Therefore he submitted relying on the decisions in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies, (1996)5 S.C.C. 344 and Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chandar, (1988)3 S.C.C. 131 , that the view taken by the High Court must be upheld. Sec.14(1)(e) of the Act reads as follows: "Sec.14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any other person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;" [Italics as in reports] In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, then necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances, the further enquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defeat the claim of the landlord. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matter. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matter. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirements of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller." [Italics supplied] 9. In this case also, to prove the claim of bona fides, the financial position of the landlord is a requirement of law. The landlord produced documents to show that he is in possession of assets and the tenant was also given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the landlord and adduce rebuttal evidence. Again, the purpose of pleadings is only to give notice of the case put forward by either party. Tenant has effectively met the case of landlord in spite of lack of pleadings. He cannot complain that he was prejudiced due to lack of pleadings. In fact, there is no argument before the Authorities below that the tenant was prejudiced by the lack of pleadings. It is also well-settled that rent control proceedings is summary in nature, and the principle of strict proof of pleadings is not applicable to cases like a civil suit. On merits, it is proved that the landlord is in possession of various items of immovable properties; he has got rental income; income from estate, etc., and he has got the capacity to put up construction after demolition. When these materials were placed before tenant, he only pleaded ignorance about the financial position of the landlord. The finding of the Authorities below that the landlord has got the capacity to put up construction is, therefore, correct. 10. The only other question that requires consideration is, whether the landlord has got plan and licence for putting up construction. Before filing the eviction petition, the landlord applied to the local authority for approved plan and also remitted the necessary fees for getting the same. 10. The only other question that requires consideration is, whether the landlord has got plan and licence for putting up construction. Before filing the eviction petition, the landlord applied to the local authority for approved plan and also remitted the necessary fees for getting the same. It is well-known that the rent control proceedings, even though summary in nature, is not completed at least for a decade. The Building rules are also changed from time to time, and when once a plan is obtained, that will be of no use when there is a change in the rules. Moreover, construction could be put up only on a plan which is obtained after getting possession of the building. Again, under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act, production of plan and licence is not made a condition precedent for ordering eviction. It is only one of the items of evidence that are necessary for proving the claim of the landlord as bona fide. If the landlord has taken steps for getting a plan and has remitted necessary fees before the Local authority, there can be a presumption that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, if the other conditions are also satisfied. In this case, importance is given to the dilapidated condition of the building. That fact is proved. It is also settled law that mere non-production of plan and licence at the time of eviction petition or late production will not be a ground to doubt the bona fides of the landlord. The concurrent findings of the Authorities below is that the claim of the landlord is bona fide. 11. An argument was taken by learned counsel for tenant that the building has to be put up in a hill station where the Rules are different. It is true that the building has to be put up in a hill station. It is only to put up construction in that area, landlord has sought for approval and licence, and naturally the concerned authorities will also take into consideration the relevant building regulations. Therefore, no argument could be advanced by tenant on that score. 12. while considering the question of bona fides, the Court will have to take into consideration whether the landlord has filed the eviction petition with an oblique motive to get rid of the tenant somehow or other. Therefore, no argument could be advanced by tenant on that score. 12. while considering the question of bona fides, the Court will have to take into consideration whether the landlord has filed the eviction petition with an oblique motive to get rid of the tenant somehow or other. Even the tenant has no case that the landlord has filed the eviction petition with an ulterior motive. When the ingredients of the Section are satisfied, Court can presume that the claim of the landlord is bona fide. It is for the tenant to prove the contrary by letting in rebuttal evidence. There is absolutely no evidence to come to different conclusion from the one reached by the Authorities below. 13. In the result, the concurrent judgments of the authorities below are confirmed, by dismissing the revision petition. There will be no order as to costs.