Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. A. S. Raman for Ptr.
  • Mr. C. Raghunatha Reddy for Respt.
Judges
  • Ratnam, J.
Acts
  • S. 7 (3) (a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 25 of 1949, comparable to to S. 10 (3) (a) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
  • S. 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
  • S. 1(3)(a)(i);of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960,
  • S. 7 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1949,
  • Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. A. S. Raman for Ptr.
  • Mr. C. Raghunatha Reddy for Respt.
Judges
  • Ratnam, J.
Acts
  • S. 7 (3) (a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 25 of 1949, comparable to to S. 10 (3) (a) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
  • S. 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
  • S. 1(3)(a)(i);of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960,
  • S. 7 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1949,
  • Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Summary of the Judgment (Civil Revision Petition concerning S. 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is the landlady and owner of premises at Door No. 5, Sir Thegaraya Road, Madras-17, acquired by registered sale deed dated 10-3-1975. At the time of purchase the first floor was tenanted by the respondent at Rs. 400 per month (tenancy reckoned by English calendar). After purchase the respondent attorned the tenancy to the petitioner. The petitioner issued notice terminating the tenancy and filed an eviction application under S. 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (as amended), stating she required the entire building for residential purposes of herself and family and to enable her husband to attend to family charities and estate administration; additionally one daughter had reached marriageable age and required separate accommodation.

The respondent contested the eviction application. The Rent Controller (Seventh Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras) dismissed the application, holding that under S. 10(3)(c) the petitioner could not demand additional accommodation on behalf of members of her family and rejecting the respondent's claim to immunity as an essential services provider. The petitioner appealed (HRA No. 322 of 1977) to the Appellate Authority (Second Judge, Small Cause Court, Madras), which affirmed the Rent Controller's view, stating that under S. 10(3)(c) a landlord can seek additional accommodation only for the business which she was carrying on and not for the purpose of her husband's business, and dismissed the appeal.

The petitioner instituted this Civil Revision Petition seeking revision of the orders of the courts below which had dismissed her application for eviction.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. What is the proper interpretation of the phrase “if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on” in S. 10(3)(c) of the Act — whether it must be read narrowly as the landlord's exclusively personal need, or more liberally to include needs of close family members or persons living with and dependent on the landlord.
  2. Whether a landlord may claim additional accommodation for the purpose of enabling her husband to carry on his business (i.e., whether the husband's business need falls within "for purposes of a business which he is carrying on").
  3. Whether the respondent claiming to provide essential services is immune from eviction under the section relied upon by the petitioner.
  4. Whether the petitioner’s eviction application was bona fide or was motivated by a disputed demand for increased rent and alleged cutting off of amenities by the petitioner.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner sought a liberal interpretation of the words “if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on,” contending it is not necessary that the need be exclusively personal to the landlord.
  • The petitioner asserted bona fide requirement: she required the entire building for residential use by herself and family, to enable her husband to attend to family charities and estate administration, and to provide accommodation for a daughter who had reached marriageable age.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondent contended the provision must be strictly interpreted, so that only personal needs of the landlord (for residential purposes or for a business which the landlord personally carries on) are covered.
  • The respondent argued that its occupation constituted essential services and that therefore no eviction order should be made on that ground.
  • The respondent alleged (as part of its defence) that the eviction application stemmed from the petitioner's demand for increased rent and interference with amenities, though the opinion records absence of evidence to establish this allegation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Kolandavela Chettiar v. Koolayana Chettiar The words “his own occupation” (in a related sub‑section) were given a liberal meaning to include occupation by persons living with and economically dependent on the landlord (e.g., nephew); the words should not be restricted to the landlord's personal occupation. The court relied on this authority to support a liberal interpretation of the comparable phrase “if he requires” in S. 10(3)(c), concluding that the landlord's requirement can include the needs of close family members living with the landlord.
Bldubhushan v. Commissioner, Patta (Division Bench, Patna High Court) Authority cited in Kolandavela as supporting a wider/liberal meaning of “his own occupation.” Referred to as supportive precedent for the liberal construction adopted in Kolandavela and relied upon in the court’s reasoning to interpret similar words in S. 10(3)(c).
Rajaratnam v. L. Noronha (1972 M.L.J. 70 = 85 L.W. 298) Affirmed or followed the liberal reasoning in Kolandavela regarding the interpretation of “his own occupation.” Cited as a decision where the learned judge followed Venkatadri, J.'s reasoning in Kolandavela; used to reinforce the proposition that a liberal interpretation is appropriate.
K. I. Kangu v. Ahmedunnhisa Begum Interpreted S. 7(3)(c) (earlier Act) liberally; held that the requirement of the landlord's family (e.g., a son‑in‑law practising medicine living with the landlady) can satisfy the words “if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purpose of a business which he is carrying on.” Quoted and relied upon (including Veeraswami, J.'s reasoning) to support the proposition that the words “if he requires” should not be narrowly construed; applied to uphold eviction in circumstances where a close relation living with the landlord required part of the premises for a business.
Saraswothi v. Vadivelu Chettiar Observed that it is a legitimate request by a landlady to seek possession for use and occupation by her husband for his business; a beneficial, equitable construction would not exclude such a request. Quoted to support the conclusion that a landlady can request possession to enable her husband to carry on business from the premises and that such a request can be within the statutory language.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by examining the textual phrase in S. 10(3)(c): “if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on.” It observed that courts construing comparable language in earlier provisions had given it a liberal meaning rather than a strictly personal one. The opinion reviews the following analytical steps grounded in the text:

  1. Comparative statutory and judicial analysis: The court examined earlier decisions (Kolandavela Chettiar, K. I. Kangu, Rajaratnam and others) which had interpreted phrases such as “his own occupation” and “if he requires” liberally to include needs of persons living with the landlord and dependent on him, and noted that legislative amendments (inserting express references to a son) aligned with this liberal interpretation.
  2. Application of the liberal principle to the facts: The court found it undisputed that the petitioner lived with her husband and children and asserted the need to use the whole house as the family residence and to enable her husband to conduct administration of charities and estate; the husband's office was said to be located elsewhere. The court concluded that this requirement cannot be characterised as unreasonable and fits within the liberal construction of “if he requires.”
  3. Assessment of evidence on bona fides: The respondent alleged that the eviction application was retaliatory or motivated by a demand for increased rent and by cutting off amenities. The court examined the record and found no acceptable evidence that the petitioner had demanded increased rent or cut off amenities; orders referred to by the respondent were not produced. Thus the court held the petitioner's case to be bona fide.
  4. Consideration of the essential services claim and relative hardship: The learned Rent Controller had earlier held that the respondent was not entitled to immunity as an essential services provider; the High Court opinion records the respondent's admission that it did not necessarily require the exact premises to carry on its business and that it desired a presence on the main road. The court observed there was no indication that similarly convenient premises were unavailable and that, being a banking institution, the respondent should be able to secure alternate accommodation. Balancing hardships, the court held the hardship to the petitioner outweighed the hardship to the respondent.
  5. Conclusion from combined analysis: On the basis of the liberal construction of the statutory phrase, the finding of bona fide need by the petitioner, lack of evidence the eviction application was retaliatory, and the relative ease for the respondent to obtain alternative suitable premises, the court concluded that the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner's application and that the petitioner was entitled to possession of the premises occupied by the respondent.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The orders of the courts below dismissing the petitioner's application for eviction were set aside and the Civil Revision Petition was allowed.

Consequences and practical effect on the parties:

  • The petitioner is entitled to recover possession of the premises in the occupation of the respondent on the ground that she requires additional accommodation for residential purposes and for enabling her husband to establish his office within the building.
  • The respondent (tenant) was directed to vacate the premises within two months from the date of the judgment.
  • No costs were awarded.

Broader implications: The opinion applies and reaffirms a liberal interpretation of the statutory phrase “if he requires additional accommodation…” consistent with the cited precedents and legislative amendments. The judgment itself focuses on application of existing principles to the facts and does not purport in the text to lay down a novel legal doctrine beyond endorsing the liberal approach discussed in earlier cases.

Show full summary ...

    Surekha v. The United Bank Of India, Madras-17.

    JUDGMENT

    The landlady is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, which seeks to revise the orders of the courts below, dismissing an application filed by her for an order of eviction against the respondent herein under S. 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to the case of the petitioner, she is the owner of the house bearing door No. 5, Sir Thegaraya Road, Madras-17. having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 10-3-1975 and the first floor of the premises was even then tenanted by the respondents herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 400 the tenancy being reckoned according to English calendar. After the purchase by the petitioner, the respondent attorned the tenancy in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that the property was purchased by her with the intention of using the entire building for the residence of the petitioner and her family. Elaborating this requirement, the petitioner claimed that her husband is looking after the family charities and estate and he requires enough space in the building for the purpose of attending to the administration of the charities and their estate in order that it may facilitate proper administration of the same and in order to secure this, the petitioner stated that accommodation was necessary to enable her husband to do so. In addition, the petitioner also claimed that of her two daughters, one of them had reached marriageable age and separate and more convenient accommodation for her is necessary. After issuing a notice terminating the tenancy, the petitioner filed an application for eviction on the grounds referred to above.

    2. The respondent herein contested this application on several grounds. The respondent admitted that it was a tenant of the first floor right from 1-1-1964 onwards. It was also further contended by the respondent that there were disputes between the petitioner and the respondent on account of a demand for increased rent by the petitioner which was not accepted by the respondent and this took the shape of interference by the petitioner with certain amenities enjoyed by the respondent, which resulted in an application by the respondent in HRC 928 of 1976 for the restoration of those amenities. The respondent further contended that the grounds put forth by the petitioner for additional accommodation are vague and totally devoid of particulars and that the provision of separate accommodation for the daughter of the petitioner is inconsistent with the accommodation claimed on behalf of the petitioner's husband. Another plea was also raised that the services of the respondent would fall under the classification of essential services and therefore no orders for eviction can be passed. The application by the petitioner was characterised as not bonafide and it was also stated that the application does not satisfy the requirements of S. 10 (3) (c) of the Act.

    3. The learned Rent Controller (7th Judge) Small Cause Court), Madras held that under Sec. 10(3) (c) of the Act, the petitioner cannot demand additional accommodation for and on behalf of the members of her family. Dealing with the claim of the respondent that it is engaged in essential services, the learned Rent Controller held that the respondent is not entitled to claim any immunity from eviction on this ground. The learned Kent Controller further held ‘that the hardship, which may be caused to the petitioner, if this petition is not allowed will outweigh the numerous advantages put to the respondent herein’. On these conclusions, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in HRA No. 322 of 1977, to the Appellate Authority (Second Judges Small Cause Court; Madras). The Appellate Authority held, concurring with the learned Rent Controller, that under S. 10(3) (c) the landlord can seek ‘additional accommodation only for the business which she was carrying on and not for the purpose of her husband's business’. On this finding, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal.

    4. In this Civil Revision Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the interpretation of S. 10 (3) (c) of the Act by the courts below is incorrect. According to him the words if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be “should be given a liberal interpretation and in order to attract the section, it is not necessary that the need should be exclusively personal to the landlord. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the provision has to be strictly interpreted and the personal requirement of the landlord either for business or by way of additional accommodation only is within the contemplation of the section. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions raised, the provisions of the section in so for as they are relevant for the purpose of the present case may be referred to. S. 10 (3) (c) runs thus:

    “A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, may, not withstanding anything contained in clause (a) apply to the controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or tor purposes of a business which he is carrying on, at the case may be “.

    The question is what is the meaning to be given to the words if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on’. In construing the words ‘landlord and if he requires’ under S. 10 (3) (c) of the Act, the Courts have understood the words ‘if he requires’ in S. 10 (3) (c) in the same liberal, sense as the words ‘his own occupation’ employed in clause (a) of that section, in Kolandavela Chettiar v. Koolayana Chettiar.1 Venkatadri, J. dealing with a case under S. 7 (3) (a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 25 of 1949, comparable to to S. 10 (3) (a) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, is of 1960, had occasion to interpret the words ‘his own occupation’. After referring to an unreported judgment of Chagla, C. J. to the effect that one should look into the customs of the society and the nature of socialities which subsist between the different members of the family in this country, the learned Judge held that a landlord can maintain an application for eviction of a tenant on the ground that he requires the the premises for setting up a separate family for his second son. In doing so, Venkatadri, J. referred to and relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Bldubhushan v. Commissioner, Patta. In construing the expression ‘his own occupation’ the Bench held that those word cannot be resuicted only to the occupation of the landlord himself, but should be given A wider and liberal meaning so as to include the occupation of persons, who are living with the landlord and are economically defendant on him in that case, the landlord required the premises for establishing his nephew, who was living with him and dependent on him in business. This interpretation would take in the requirement of the landlord's son also Within the meaning of the words ‘his own occupation’ even according to S. 7(3)(a) (i) as it then stood. To similar effect is the judgment of V. V. Raghavan, J. in Rajaratnam v. L. Noronha . 1972 M.L.J 70=85 L.W 298. wherein the learned Judge followed the reasoning of Venkatadri, J. in Kolandataivelu Chettiar v. Koolayana Chettiar.3 It must also be remembered that the Section had undergone an amendment and in S. 1(3)(a)(i);of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, a clear provision has also been made and the words ‘for the occupation of his son and if he or his son is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned’ have been inserted, presumably to accord with this interpretation put upon the words by the course. It is therefore evident that the requirement for the son of the landlord would fall within the requirement of the landlord with the meaning of s. 7(3)(a)(i) as it then stood and now under S. 10(1)(a)(i) as amended and it is difficult to apply a different principle of interpretation to the words ‘if he landlord requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on occurring in S. 10 (3) (c). Indeed, Veeraswami, J. as he then was had occasion to interpret S. 7 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1949, as it then stood, in K. I. Kangu v. Ahmedunnhisa Begum.4 In that case, the application was filed on the ground that the landlord's son-in-law who was practising medicine, required a portion of the premises for opening a clinic. It was also not disputed that the son-in-law and the daughter with their children were living in the same house. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority construed the words ‘his own occupation’ in S. 7 (3)(c) of the Act liberally and held that that case would fall within the ambit of those words. The propriety of the view was challenged before the learned judge. Before the learned Judge, a literal construction of the words ‘if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purpose of business which he is carrying on’ was persisted in and the argument was raised that merely because the son-in-law happened to be living with the landlady, that would be no justification to say that she requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purpose of a business which she was carrying on. On a close examination of the provision, Veeraswami, as he then was after referring to the judgment of Venkatadr, J. in Kolandavelu Chettiar v. Koolyana Cheitiar, observed thus at page 99:—

    “I am also inclined to take the view that the words' for his own occupation should receive a liberal interpretation. If that is so, there is no reason why a different principle should apply to Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 7. The words ‘if he requires in that provision should, in my opinion, be understood in the same liberal sense as the words ‘his own occupation’ in Clause (a) of that sub-section have been understood. What is meant, as I think by the words’ "his own occupation" or if he requires' is that the requirement is not that of a stranger. It is not necessary to attract those words that the need should be personal to the landlord But where the line should be drawn will depend on the particular facts in each case. It may, however, be generally stated, without intending to be precise or exhaustive. that the need of close relations who happen to live with the landlord or landlady may well satisfy the words ‘his own occupation’ or ‘if he requites’. I do not say that the relationship is the only test. Dependency, social customs, and habits, usage, practice of a particular community and like considerations may well be taken into account in determining whether the requirement of those words is satisfied.”

    Ultimately, the learned Judge held that the words ‘if he requires's should not be read as in a narrow sense of a landlord's personal need, but that the requirement of the landlord's family would well fall within the statutory requirements and upheld the order of eviction.

    5. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the husband of the petitioner and her two daughters and sons are living with her and the petitioner requires the premises in question only for the purpose of using the entire house as the residence for herself and for other members of her family including her husband, daughters and son. It is the case of the landlady that her husband has to be provided with accommodation in order to facilitate his management of the charities and estate. It is in evidence that the husband of the petitioner is having his office for this purpose elsewhere. This requirement cannot be in any manner characterised as unreasonable. The following observations of Ramaprasada Rao, J as he then was, reported in Saraswothi v. Vadivelu Chettiar, are apposite:

    “I do not think that a beneficial construction, a construction in consonance with justice reason, equity and good conscience would exclude a request by a landlady for being put in possession of her building for the use and occupation by her husband for his business. In Hindu society it is the legitimate duty of the wife to provide it to her husband and afortiori it is so for furtherance or the interest of the business of her husband in which it can be safely presumed that she is vitally interested’.

    In view of the above, the petitioner certainly is entitled to ask for additional accommodation in the premises in quest on in order to enable her husband to establish hit office which is now being located outside.

    6. Likewise, the requirement of the petitioner even for the other members of the family, seems to be not only bona fide, but reasonable. It is not in dispute that the first daughter of the petitioner has attained age and that she is to be married and evidence has been given to the effect that the daughter and the son-in-law will have to be provided with accommodation. The evidence also discloses that the existing accommodation in the ground floor is inadequate because it consists of two bed rooms, a hall and a kitchen and a bathroom. It is not in dispute that there is no drawing room in the grouny floor. Having regard to the availabl accommodation the object of the landlad seems to be to locate her husband's office inside the premises and also to make a readjustment of the other accommodation for the daughter and the son-in-law who is to be brought into the family as well as the other daughter and son. It is not disputed that it is open to the landlady to seek additional accommodation either for residential or for non-residential purposes and therefore, it is certainly open to the petitioner to recover possession of the premises in the occupation of the respondent on the ground that the requires additional accommodation for the purposes aforesaid.

    7. That leaves for consideration the question of bona fides Though the respondent would claim that the application for eviction is the outcome of a refusal by it to pay increased rent, yet, there is no acceptable evidence in regard to that. It is admitted that the area in the occupation of the respondent is about 1000 sq.ft and the building is situated in the main road in a very important and busy locality. In respect of this premises, the rent that is being paid by the respondent is Rs. 400 per mensem. A suggestion has been put to P.W 1, that there was a demand for increase of rent, that the respondent refused to pay and thereafter the amenities were cut off and attempts were made to evict the respondent. This suggestion has been denied, it is the evidence of P.W 1 that he did not write to the head office about the alleged demand for enhanced rent by the petitioner. There is, thus, no proof before the court that there was any demand as such for increased rent by the petitioner and a refusal by the respondent and in the absence of Such proof, it must be held that there was no such demand by the petitioner. It is also not established by evidence that amenities were cut off and that there were mis-understandings on account of the proceedings taken before the Rent Controller. Though the respondent refers to certain proceedings In paragraph 4 of its counter, the orders passed thereon have not been made available to the court as evidence and therefore, it is not possible to hold that the application for eviction was the outcome of a refusal by the petitioner to provide amenities and a restoration thereof by the court in these proceedings. Under these circumstances, the application by the petitioner cannot be characterised as not bona fide and the courts below were, therefore, in error in having rejected this reasonable request of the petitioner

    8. The question of relative hardship may now be adverted to. It is significant that R. W. 1 admits that it is not necessary for them to have the very same premises for carrying on the business of the respondent but they would like to have a premises in the main road, which would not in any manner affect their business. There is nothing to indicate that other premises having similar advantages like the one in the occupation of the respondent are not available and it ^is only necessary that the respondent should be on the look out for a suitable premises in the locality and being a banking institution, whose occupation of premises is prized by some landlords at least, there is no likelihood of the respondent encountering any difficulty in the matter of securing equally convenient accommodation. There is thus. No hardship that would be caused to the tenant by an order for eviction being passed against it/which would outweigh the advantages of the landlady. The result is, the order of the courts below are set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.

    9. The learned counsel for the respondent prays that some time may be given to vacate the for emises and the learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to grant the respondent two months time. The respondent accordingly will have two months time from today vacate the premises.

    vcs

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Surekha v. The United Bank Of India, Madras-17.
    (Dec 17, 1979)