Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2316 (MAD)

S. Ramesh v. A. Swaminathan

2014-08-04

S.VIMALA

body2014
Judgment : 1. The landlord filed a petition under section 10 (3) (a) (i) of The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, (hereinafter will be referred to as “The Act”), seeking an order of eviction against the tenant/respondent on the ground that the leased tenement is required for his own use and occupation. The said petition was allowed, granting two months time, for the tenant, to vacate. The tenant filed an appeal in RCA No.226 of 2012 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Tribunal below. Challenging the concurrent dismissal of the defence of the tenant, the tenant has filed this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Brief facts of the case is as follows - The suit property is a shop bearing Door No.6 measuring an extent of 30 sq.ft (5x6) being used for the commercial purpose of tailoring. The father of the respondent and thereafter, the respondent, are tenants under the petitioner right from the year 1977. The petitioner's son and grandson are unemployed and therefore, Shop No.6 is required for the purpose of running xerox business. On this ground of own use and occupation, the petition was filed. 3. The claim made for personal use and occupation was disputed by the tenant on the following grounds - (a) The respondent owns eight shops which are adjacent to the petition mentioned property and the claim of the petitioner against this respondent alone is motivated. (b) The tailoring business is the only livelihood option available to the tenant and therefore, vacating the premises would amount to vacating his business. (c) The requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide. 4. The Rent Controller, on framing points for consideration, gave a finding that the petitioner's son and grandson remained unemployed and as the petitioner's son and grandson are not owners of any other non-residential building in the city of Chennai, the landlord is entitled to get the tenant vacated. There is a further finding that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. 5. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller by giving the following findings - (a) The landlord wanted to create an employment opportunity to the son and grandson and they have chosen the copying business and hence, the desire of the landlord is bonafide. 5. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller by giving the following findings - (a) The landlord wanted to create an employment opportunity to the son and grandson and they have chosen the copying business and hence, the desire of the landlord is bonafide. (b) The selection of shop No.6 by the landlord must be due to bonafide reasons. 6. These findings are under challenge in this Revision Petition. 6.1. The Rent Control legislations have been enacted for achieving three purposes, viz., (a) Prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants from residential and non-residential buildings; (b) control of rent; (c) regulation of letting; (d) it is a piece of social reform in order of protect the tenants from capricious and frivolous eviction. 7. Admittedly, the premises is being used for non-residential purposes by the tenant and the landlord is seeking eviction of the tenant for using the premises for non-residential purposes only. The main requirement to be proved by the landlord, when he is seeking eviction on the ground of personal occupation in respect of non-residential purposes, are as under - (i) The premises should be a non-residential one; (ii) The landlord or the family members for whom the building is required must be carrying on business; (iii) The landlord or his family members for whom the building is required should not own any non-residential building of their own; (iv) The requirement should be bonafide. 8. Admittedly, the landlord is the owner of eight shops (which are in possession of six tenants), out of which, the property in the occupation of the tenant is the smallest one, i.e., measuring an extent of only 30 sq.ft. (5x6). According to the learned counsel representing the landlord, the son for whose benefit the property is needed is not the owner of any other non-residential building and therefore, the petition for eviction is maintainable. 8.1. This position is not under dispute. 9. The only question to be decided is, whether the requirement is bonafide or not. 9.1. The learned counsel representing the tenant submitted that the landlord entertained an apprehension that the tenant may handover the business premises to somebody else (by selling the business) and only because of that wrong apprehension/fear, the landlord has filed the application for eviction and that the alleged personal use is neither true nor correct. 9.2. 9.1. The learned counsel representing the tenant submitted that the landlord entertained an apprehension that the tenant may handover the business premises to somebody else (by selling the business) and only because of that wrong apprehension/fear, the landlord has filed the application for eviction and that the alleged personal use is neither true nor correct. 9.2. A perusal of the evidence would go to show that when the landlord was examined before the court, a suggestion had been put to him that, as the tenant was planning to sell the suit property, he filed an application for eviction. This suggestion was denied by him originally, but, immediately thereafter, he has accepted the suggestion made. He has admitted that he was given to understand that the tenant and his mother were trying to sell the business. Therefore, the interference is that, in all probability, that would have been the reason for the landlord to have asked the tenant to vacate the premises. The inference would get strengthened, when it is admitted that there are eight shops available (with six tenants) and two of the tenants, having two portions in their custody, eviction has not been sought for from those two tenants. Admittedly, when two of the tenants are having two portions each and if really, if the premises is needed for personal use, the landlord would have made a request to those two tenants, so that it would have been easy for them to vacate one out of the two. When that is not done, the Court cannot come to the immediate conclusion that requirement is not bonafide. But when this conduct is considered coupled with the admission made that the landlord was entertaining an apprehension that the tenant herein is likely to sell his business, the inference is that the alleged requirement for personal use must be an over-thought and it is not bonafide. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the landlord that the tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to when, where (at which shop) and how the landlord should conduct his business. 10.1. True that the tenant has no such authority and no such courage to ask. This question has to be considered only in the context of considering the bonafides in asking the tenant to vacate the premises. 10.1. True that the tenant has no such authority and no such courage to ask. This question has to be considered only in the context of considering the bonafides in asking the tenant to vacate the premises. The landlord, who is owning eight shops, would never choose a shop with a least space for the purpose of conducting his personal business. The landlord would never be willing to sit in a small shop, when the adjacent tenants under him are occupying shops with larger space. Ego would not permit it. It may be contended that to save economy, the landlord may choose so, but considering the fact that the space available in shop No.6 is only 30 sq.ft. in which it would be difficult to accommodate both the xerox machine and the customers, one can reasonably conclude that the requirement of landlord is not bonafide. 10.2. The nature of the business is such that, there should be enough space atleast to accommodate one xerox operator and the customers, who would be coming to take out the xerox copies. The order of the day for business is that, there must be enough space to accommodate the customers even if there is no space to accommodate the objects. Therefore, the claim of the landlord directing the tenant to handover possession of the premises for personal occupation cannot be correct. 11. The findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority are perverse, as the findings are based on no materials. Therefore, the findings of the first Appellate Authority in RCA No.226 of 2012 are set aside. 12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The decree and judgment in RCA No.226 of 2012 is set aside and RCOP No.2004 of 2010 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.