Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1553 (MAD)

H. Balaraman v. M. J. Sivasachidanandam

2021-04-30

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

body2021
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 passed in R.C.A.No.156 of 2013 on the file of the Learned IXth Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order of eviction made in R.C.O.P.No.2237 of 2008 dated 27.02.2013 on the file of the Learned XVth Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a petition under Section 10(3) a (iii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, seeking an order of eviction on the ground of owners occupation. 3. The case of the respondent before the Rent Controller at Chennai is that the respondent is the absolute owner of the entire ground floor of the building premises, Old No.2, New No.3, Sivagnanam Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 17 and he obtained the same by way of settlement deed executed by his father in the year 1983. Originally, the petitioner was paying the monthly rent Rs.3,500/- to the respondent. The respondent/landlord claims that he is a postgraduate in Business Management and he requires the petition premises to start a super market or retail trade in general merchant, stationery, computer accessories and to deal with the mobile phones. He has sufficient funds to start a business in the petition building and he also has a rich experience in business field since he already dealt with the distribution and wholesale business. Now he is not doing any business for want of accommodation for his retail business. As he requires the entire ground floor premises for the said business, he has to evict all the tenants in the ground floor premises. 4. The respondent/landlord further claims that the petition premises is situated in the prime commercial locality abutting Pondy Bazaar and it is the fit and proper place to carry on the above said business for earning more income. Hence, he had requested the petitioner/tenant orally to vacate the said premises. But the petitioner did not vacate the same which caused great hardship to him and he also incurred loss. Putting forth those facts, the respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.2237 of 2008 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of owners use and occupation. 5. Hence, he had requested the petitioner/tenant orally to vacate the said premises. But the petitioner did not vacate the same which caused great hardship to him and he also incurred loss. Putting forth those facts, the respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.2237 of 2008 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of owners use and occupation. 5. The petitioner herein who is the tenant under the respondent contended before the Rent Controller that initially the premises was rented out for a non residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.3500/- when he was inducted as a tenant and the said premises was taken out for running a Wine Shop business under a partnership with the consent and knowledge of the respondent/landlord, wherein, he had to obtain valid licence and the landlord has given NOC. After a period of time, the said Wine Shop business was closed and now the petitioner is running a Tea Shop in the said building by obtaining necessary licence from the Corporation of Chennai. The respondent/landlord is not doing any business and as such the question of any requirement of the petition premises for his own occupation does not arise. 6. The petitioner further contended that there are various tenants in the main building and they are all in separate units and the partition wall in between the shops cannot be removed. The entire building were collapsed and hence it should be demolished. If really the respondent wants to carry on a business, the said building will not withstand and it is highly impracticable and impossible for the landlord to demolish the partition walls and make it as one unit. 7. The petitioner also contended that it is false that the petition has been filed for own use and occupation and the landlord is having and owning a building next to the petition premises, wherein, Punjab National Bank is functioning and similarly opposite to the petition premises the landlord is having another building, in which, Bank of Maharashtra is the main tenant, and the alleged requirement of the petition premises for the purpose of his own occupation for starting the alleged business is nothing but a false one invented by the landlord for the purpose of maintaining the petition and evicting the petitioner on some ground or the other. 8. 8. The XV Small Causes Court, Chennai after the elaborate procedure of trial by leading evidence by both the parties by order dated 27.02.2013 allowed the R.C.O.P filed by the respondent/landlord. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred R.C.A.No.156 of 2013 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties concerned passed a Judgment dated 13.12.2019 confirming the order of the Rent Control Authority. As against which, the present revision petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case including position of law in proper perspective dismissed the said appeal and without applying the judicial mind independently simply confirmed the order of the Rent Controller, and the rulings cited by the petitioner's counsel was not at all considered. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the alleged claim of the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition premises on the ground of owners occupation lacks bonafides and the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence and pleadings of the tenant and also the respondent's evidence, wherein, it is admitted that he was not carrying on any business on the date of the petition for eviction. The documentary evidence produced by the respondent, namely, Exs.P1 to P4 is not at all sufficient to establish his bonafides and the Court below has failed to consider that the respondent/landlord owns the adjacent buildings and there is no bonafide requirement on the part of the respondent seeking an order of eviction. The Court below has also failed to consider that the respondent side Engineer's Report is prepared to support the false case of the landlord and the removal of partition walls will definitely affect the structural stability of the building and there is absolutely no bonafides and only to evict all the 8 tenants at the premises in one short, the said report was prepared. 11. Mr.A.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgments reported in 2006 (1) CTC 333 , (1995) 2 MLJ 62 and MANU/TN/0345/1986. 11. Mr.A.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgments reported in 2006 (1) CTC 333 , (1995) 2 MLJ 62 and MANU/TN/0345/1986. He would submit that mere intention to commence a business is not sufficient and at least one concrete step must have been taken to satisfy the Objective satisfaction of the Court, and in the above Judgment, this principle has been enunciated. Further, he would submit that sufficient possession of funds alone would not be sufficient to show that the Landlord had taken steps in furtherance of starting a new business. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that both the Courts below have concurrently failed to appreciate that there was no bonafide requirement for the respondent/landlord to seek eviction on the ground of owners occupation. Further, the respondent/landlord is owning many other properties in the city of Chennai and he could very well have its retail outlet as claimed in his petition in any other premises that he owns. Moreover, the petitioner's counsel would submit that the respondent/landlord was not carrying on any business on the date of filing the petition for eviction and he has also not pleaded that he was in heavy preparation for commencing the business. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that Exs.P1 to P4 which are the documents filed by the landlord were not considered in proper perspective as no reliance can be made on Exs.P1 to P4 for allowing the petition filed by the respondent/landlord for owners use and occupation. 14. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that Exs.P1 to P4 which are the documents filed by the landlord were not considered in proper perspective as no reliance can be made on Exs.P1 to P4 for allowing the petition filed by the respondent/landlord for owners use and occupation. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out and bring to the knowledge of this Court regarding the cross examination of the respondent/landlord, wherein, especially in Page No.2, the respondent has stated as follows : vd;Dila kDtpy; kD njjpapy; ve;j bjhHpYk; “ bra;atpy;iy vd;W Fwpg;gpl;oUf;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mjw;F Kd;g[ ehd; Efh;bghUs; if tp[dpnahk; bra;a[k; ntiy bra;J te;njd/; me;j ntiyia v';F bra;njd; vd;why; vd;Dila tPl;L khoapy; bra;J te;njd/; ehd; tpdpnahf!; bjhHpy; bra;J te;jjw;F Mjhuk; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd/;////////////////// ehd; vd;Dila kDtpy; Ng;gh; khh;bfl; itf;f nghtjhf Fwpg;gpltpy;iy vd;why; hpnly; tpahghuk; bra;a nghtjhf Fwpg;gpl;oUf;fpnwd;/ ehd; vd;Dila kDtpy; epiwa mDgtk; ,Ug;gjhf brhy;ypapUg;gJ Efh; bghUs; tpdpnahf!;ij Fwpf;Fk; vdf;F Ng;gh; khh;bfl; mDgtk; ,Ug;gjhf brhy;ypapUf;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpay;y/ ehd; vd;Dila kDtpy; bkhj;j tpahghuj;jpy;jhd; mDgtk; ,Ug;gjhf Fwpg;gpl;oUf;fpnwd; vd;why; ehd; bghJthf tpahghuj;jpy; mDgtk; ,Ug;gjhf brhy;ypapUf;fpnwd;/ ehd; Ng;gh; khh;bfl; itf;f vd;d eltof;if vLj;jpUf;fpnwd; vd;why; tpahghuk; bjhl';Ftjw;F njitahd gzj;ij Vw;ghL bra;Js;nsd;/ kDbrhj;jpy; ehd; bra;a ,Uf;Fk; bjhHpYf;F kDbrhj;J xj;J tUk; vd;gjw;F bghwpahsiu itj;J ghh;j;Js;nsd;/ ehd; bghwpahsh; mwpf;if jhf;fy; bra;jpUf;fpnwdh vd;why; mtiu rhl;rpahf itj;Js;sjhy; mth; Kyk; jhf;fy; bra;a ,Uf;fpnwd;/ vd;Dila bghwpahsh; bgah; vd;dbtd;why; md;gurd;/ mth; kDbrhj;ij ve;j njjpapy; ghh;itapl;lhh; vd;why; njjp vdf;F rhpahf "hgfkpy;iy/ ve;j tUlj;jpy; ghh;itapl;lhh; vd;why; mJt[k; "hgfkpy;iy/ vd;Dila bghwpahsh; kDbrhj;ij ghh;itapl te;j nghJ vjph;kDjhuUf;F mwptpg;g[ bfhLj;jhuh vd;why; mwptpg;g[ bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ vd;Dila bghwpahsh; kDbrhj;ij ghh;itapltpy;iy vd;whYk; bgha;ahd xU jftiy ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F bfhLj;Js;nsd; vd;whYk; rhpay;y/ ” 15. Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner/tenant on the basis of the evidence substantiated by the respondent/landlord which need not be interfered. Further, he would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently allowed the case of the landlord as he has sufficiently proved that the premises let out to the petitioner/tenant is required for the business of the landlord for his own use and occupation. Moreover, he would submit that as both the Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner/tenant, this Revision Petition also has to be dismissed as there is no merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the revision petitioner. 16. Moreover, he would submit that as both the Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner/tenant, this Revision Petition also has to be dismissed as there is no merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the revision petitioner. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the materials available on record. 17. On perusal of the records, It is apparently clear that both the authorities have arrived at a conclusion that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. The respondent/landlord has approached the Rent Controller at Chennai under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, which reads as follows : “10(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 : (iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord or [any member of his family] is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or [any member of his family] is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own : Provided that a person who becomes a landlord after the commencement of the tenancy by an instrument inter vivos shall not be entitled to apply under this clause before the expiry of three months from the date on which the instrument was registered : Provided further that where a landlord has obtained possession of a building under this clause, he shall not be entitled to apply again under this clause : (i) in case he has obtained possession of a residential building, for possession of another residential building of his own; (ii) in case he has obtained possession of a non-residential building, for possession of another non-residential building of his own.” 18. From the above provision, it is clear that the landlord can seek eviction of a premises for his own use and occupation. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the decision of Madurai Bench of this Court in C.R.P.(MD).No.114 of 2004 dated 26.02.2020 in Paragraph Nos.17, 18 and 19, which reads as follows : "17. From the above provision, it is clear that the landlord can seek eviction of a premises for his own use and occupation. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the decision of Madurai Bench of this Court in C.R.P.(MD).No.114 of 2004 dated 26.02.2020 in Paragraph Nos.17, 18 and 19, which reads as follows : "17. A bare reading of Section 10(3)a(iii) of the Act would lead to an impression that it would apply only to a case where the http://www.judis.nic.in landlord is already carrying on business, but by now, the law is well settled that the landlord can seek eviction of a premises even for a proposed business. It is enough the landlord has shows that he has got means to start business and he has made some arrangements to start business. Therefore, the question that is to be addressed is as to whether the need of the landlord is bonafide and whether the landlord is in occupation of any premises for the proposed business. 18. The requirement of the landlord is for starting new business apart from the business, which is being carried on him. The tenant cannot prevent the landlord from starting a new business in another premises while he continues the old business. Such restricted interpretation of the provisions would lead to anomalous situation. The landlord would be debarred from commencing any new business if he is carrying some other business in a premises of his own. After all that was not the intendment of Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960. 19. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court have repeatedly reiterated the position that a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act would lie even in a case where the landlord http://www.judis.nic.in wants to commence a new business and it has been categorically held that it is not necessary for the landlord to start business in a rented building and then seek eviction of the tenant. If we look into the evidence on record, in the backdrop of the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in petitions of these nature, the landlord, who seeks eviction under Section 10(3)a(iii) of the Act that too for commencing a new business has to prove the following :- (i) He has made atleast some arrangements to commence the business. (ii) He has the wherewithal to commence the business. (iii) The intention is bonafide. (iv) He is not in occupation or possession of any non residential building in order to enable him to commence the business.” 20. The above citation relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent would squarely applicable to the present case on hand. The petitioner/tenant has taken only defence that the respondent/landlord owns several non residential premises and he had chosen this premises for the purpose of evicting the petitioner alone. That apart, his other argument is that the respondent/landlord has not shown sufficient proof for commencing any business. 21. On perusal of the cross examination of respondent/landlord, the respondent has deposed as follows : “ jw;nghJ kDbrhj;jpy; ehd; brhe;jkhf bjhHpy; bjhl';f Kot[ bra;jpUg;gjhy; ,e;j kDit jhf;fy; bra;jpUf;fpnwd;/ vj[ph;kDjhuh; jutp kw;w vj;jid thlifjhuh;fspd; kPJ tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;jpUf;fpnwd; vd;why; 6 thlifjhuh;fs; kPJ jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd; kw;w 6 thlifjhuh;fSk; jiu jsj;jpy; ,Uf;fpwhh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ fl;ol ,oj;J tpl;L bjhHpy; bra;a ,Uf;fpnwdh vd;why; xt;bthU filf;F ,ilna cs;s xw;iwf;fy; Rtiu ,oj;J tpl;L bjhHpy; bra;a ,Uf;fpnwd;/ bkhj;j filfisa[k; ,izf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; vdf;F vt;tst[ gug;gst[ fpilf;Fk; vd;why; 1500 r/ moahFk;/ ehd; kDbrhj;jpy; vd;d bjhHpy; bra;a ,Uf;fpnwd; vd;why; bghJ tzpf!;nlcodhp bghUl;fs;. Ifngrp bghUl;fs;. Ng;gh; khh;bfl; itf;f ,Uf;fpnwd;/ vd;Dila bjhHpy; bjhl';f vt;tst[ gzk; njitg;gLk; vd;why; U:/30 Kjy; 35 yl;rkhFk;/ mjw;fhf vd;d Kaw;rp bra;jpUf;fpnwd; vd;why; g";rhg; nerdy; t';fpapy; U:/46 yl;rk; fld; bgw;Ws;nsd;/ mjw;Fk; ehd; Mjhuk; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ me;j fld; vg;bghGJ bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ vd;why; ,e;j tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;tjw;Fk; Kd;ng bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ/ kDbrhj;jpy; bjhHpy; Jl';Ftjw;fhf ntW VnjDk; Kaw;rp bra;jpUf;fpnwdh vd;why; bra;jpUf;fpnwd;/” kDbrhj;jpw;F vjphpnyna xU brhj;J cs;sJ vd;why; mJ vd; je;ijf;F brhe;jkhdJ/ jw;nghJ g";rhg; necody; t';fp cs;s ,lj;jpy; ehd; vd;Dila bjhHpiy bjhl';f KoahJ ehd; t';fp thlifia fhl;oj;jhd; fld; bgw;wpUg;gjhy; ,e;j ,lj;ij fhyp bra;J tpl;L bjhHpy; bjhl';f KoahJ/” 22. From the above evidence adduced by the respondent/landlord, it is seen that the respondent has specifically stated that the portion that is in occupation of tenant is the most suitable place for commencing his retail business. It is not for the petitioner/tenant to prescribe the suitability of the premises for the landlord, and as the landlord, he can choose where he wants to commence his business. 23. This Court has held in umpty number of cases that the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of owners occupation need not actually should already carrying on business and landlord should establish that every steps have been taken to carry on the business. 23. This Court has held in umpty number of cases that the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of owners occupation need not actually should already carrying on business and landlord should establish that every steps have been taken to carry on the business. That apart, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that choice of building is absolutely vest with the land owner and the tenant cannot dictate terms as to whether the landlord should carry on the business in which premises and other terms. 24. From the above facts and discussions, it is clear that the respondent/landlord can seek eviction on the ground of owners occupation for the proposed business which he intends to do. 25. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner/tenant has not made out any ground for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits and the findings rendered by the Courts below are confirmed. 26. The R.C.O.P is filed in the year 2008 and the petitioner is protracting the proceedings for almost more than a decade. Hence, this Court is of the further view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to squat on the property and he is directed to vacate the petition premises and handover the same to the respondent/landlord on or before 1st July 2021. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.