Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4548 (MAD)

K. Muruganandam v. K. Bhooma Raghupathy

2014-12-09

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2014
Judgment The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlady. The revision petitioner suffered an order of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (herein after called as the 'Act') which was also confirmed by the appellate authority. As against the concurrent order of eviction passed by the Courts below, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court. 3. The respondent/landlady filed Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant on three grounds, namely, wilful default, additional accommodation and for owner's occupation. The learned Rent Controller, though rejected the grounds of wilful default and additional accommodation, has however accepted the ground of owner's occupation and allowed the RCOP by his order dated 22.11.2013. Challenging the said order, both the landlady and the tenant filed appeals before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.643 of 2013 (Appellant is the tenant) and R.C.A.No.30 of 2014 (Appellant is the landlady). The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the R.C.A.No.643 of 2014 and allowed the R.C.A.No.30 of 2014. Thus, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction passed under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. It is seen that the landlady was not owning any house in her name, other than the petition mentioned property. However, it was contended by the tenant that the husband of the landlady was owning a property at Permabur and therefore, there is no bonafide on the part of the landlady seeking for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation. The said contention was rejected by the learned Rent Controller for the following reasons: (i) The landlady was not owning any other property other than the subject matter property. (ii) The property owned by the Husband of the landlady at Permabur is also sought to be demolished and re-constructed and such contention is also established by marking Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 which are the documents of the Corporation of Chennai, one demanding demolition fee from the petitioner's husband and another is the building plan permission given by the Corporation. (ii) The property owned by the Husband of the landlady at Permabur is also sought to be demolished and re-constructed and such contention is also established by marking Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 which are the documents of the Corporation of Chennai, one demanding demolition fee from the petitioner's husband and another is the building plan permission given by the Corporation. (iii) It is also pointed out by the learned Rent Controller that the sons of the landlady who are sought to be accommodated in the petition mentioned property are not owning any property and therefore, the eviction sought on the ground of owner's occupation is with bonafide. 5. The learned Appellate Authority while confirming the finding of the learned Rent Controller has pointed out that the property already owned by the landlady's husband is sought to be demolished and re-constructed and therefore, the requirement is with bonafide. 6. No doubt, the requirement of law as contemplated under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act is to the effect that the landlord or any member of his family should not occupy residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned, if the eviction is sought on the ground of owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to incorporate Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. 10. Eviction of tenants.- (1)... (2)... (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) in case it is residential building, if the landlord requires it for his own occupation or for the occupation of [any member of his family] and if he or [any member of his family] is not occupying a residential building of his won in the city, town or village concerned; A careful perusal of the said provision would show that the occupation of the residential building may be by the landlord or any member of his family, but the ownership must be of his own. In other words, though the said provision contemplates that the landlord or any member of his family should not occupy any residential building, it emphasize further that such occupation of the residential building must be of the one, owned by the landlord himself. 7. In other words, though the said provision contemplates that the landlord or any member of his family should not occupy any residential building, it emphasize further that such occupation of the residential building must be of the one, owned by the landlord himself. 7. If such requirement is not established, I am of the view that the tenant cannot be permitted to contend that there is no bonafide, merely because the landlady herein is residing in the property owned by her husband only. Even otherwise, the said property, which is at Perambur, in this case, is sought to be demolished and re-constructed and such fact is also clearly established before the learned Rent Controller by marking Ex.P.8 an Ex.P.9. Further, no contra evidence or materials are placed before the Court to disprove the same. Secondly, the bonafide of the requirement is well established by the landlady as found by the learned Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, which are concurrent factual findings. 8. Therefore, I find no grounds to interfere with the concurrent order passed by the Courts below, based on the facts and appreciation of evidences. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.