Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • P.Jothimani
  • B.Kalathinathan
Judges
  • Mr. Justice Thanikkachalam
Acts
  • provisions of Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XV of 1948,
  • Rent Control) Act,
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)
  • P.Jothimani
  • B.Kalathinathan
Judges
  • Mr. Justice Thanikkachalam
Acts
  • provisions of Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XV of 1948,
  • Rent Control) Act,
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners are tenants occupying two shops owned by the respondent, each at a monthly rent of Rs. 160. The respondent is himself a tenant in rented premises at No. 22, Deenadayalan Street, T. Nagar, Madras, where he carries on a motor mechanic business and has no other non-residential premises of his own in the City of Madras. The respondent sent a notice dated 6.6.1987 calling upon the petitioners to quit and deliver vacant possession; the petitioners did not comply. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) (and additionally relied on Section 10(3)(e)) of the relevant Rent Control Act alleging bona fide requirement for his own use.

The Rent Controller, after examining witnesses and documents filed by both sides (landlord filed 11 documents and tenants filed 8 documents), concluded that the landlord had established a bona fide requirement under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and ordered eviction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed that order on appeal. The tenants challenged the appellate order by preferring the present revision petition.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the landlord established a bona fide requirement for the petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act (and relatedly Section 10(3)(e)).
  2. Whether a single petition filed by the landlord to evict two tenants (father and son) occupying two shops is maintainable.
  3. Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority warrant interference in revision proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Tenants' Arguments (Appellants)

  • It is not correct that the landlord requires the petition premises for his own use; there is no evidence of bona fide requirement.
  • The landlord habitually increases rent (from Rs. 95 initially to Rs. 160), suggesting motive to obtain higher rent rather than bona fide occupation.
  • Two shops earlier fell vacant but the landlord did not occupy them, indicating lack of genuine requirement.
  • The tenants have been in occupation since 1976 and have built goodwill; the landlord's petition may be an attempt to obtain more rent rather than genuine occupation.
  • Since there are two separate rental agreements for the two shops, a single petition against both tenants is not maintainable.
  • The tenants disputed that the landlord was presently engaged in motor mechanic business — they contended he conducted a driving school (which they attributed to him) and challenged the relevance and currency of documents relied upon by the landlord (e.g., a certificate published long ago).
  • One of the shops allegedly unsuitable for motor mechanic activities (due to electric meter and switches) and the other being small; tenants contended the premises were insufficient for the landlord’s claimed business purpose.

Landlord's Arguments (Respondent)

  • The landlord required the two shops for his own bona fide use to accommodate and conduct his motor mechanic business because he is a tenant elsewhere and faces possible eviction from that rented premises.
  • He does not possess any other non-residential premises of his own in Madras to carry on the motor mechanic trade.
  • Both shops are occupied by the father and son jointly; hence a single petition against both is maintainable because the premises form a single unit for the landlord’s purpose.
  • Evidence (including a certificate: Ex.R-5, testimony of P.W.2, and additional documents Ex.P-9, Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11) shows he conducts motor mechanic business or is engaged in activities consistent with that business; affidavits indicate the driving school is run by his wife or son rather than by him.
  • The landlord explained practical reasons for needing both shops — one for storing tools and the other for carrying out repairs — and pointed to the availability of a vacant front space for parking/repairing cars that would be useful despite traffic conditions elsewhere.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
R. Venkatesachari v. A. Judge, Court of Small Causes (1949) 2 M.L.J. 784 Held that where portions of a house are let separately the owner may still file for possession of the entire building; the relevant question is whether the owner requires the entire building bona fide. The court relied on this authority to support the proposition that the landlord can seek possession of multiple portions and that bona fide requirement of the entire premises is the controlling question.
Kandasamy v. Hajee K.S. Mohammed Mohideen Rowther (1982) 1 M.L.J. 170 When there is a single tenancy agreement even if the premises consist of more than one portion, a rent control application in respect of the entire premises can be maintained. The court applied this principle to conclude that where the shops are not distinct units and form a single tenancy context, a single petition is competent.
T.N. Unnamalai Achi v. Swaminatha Pathar, 93 L. W. 404 Where premises formed different units serving different purposes, clubbing such premises in one petition may prejudice tenants; a single petition to evict from differently purposed premises cannot be countenanced. The court distinguished this decision on the facts, observing that in the present case the shops were not of different kinds and thus the authority was not applicable.
Hamedia Hardware v. Mohanlal Sowcar (Supreme Court) The authorities set out the ingredients required to obtain possession under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) (specific ingredients are referenced in the opinion). The court referred to this Supreme Court decision as stating the ingredients for a claim under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and found that, on the facts, the landlord satisfied those ingredients; the lower authorities' factual findings were concurred with.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning proceeded from the evidence and the applicable statutory provision (Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act) and relevant precedents. Key steps in the court's analysis were:

  1. Assessment of factual evidence: The court noted the landlord is a tenant at premises on Deenadayalan Street and conducts a motor mechanic business there, and that he lacks other non-residential premises in Madras. The landlord produced documentary evidence (Ex.R-5, Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-11) and witness testimony (P.W.2) to show he was engaged in motor mechanic work; the tenants did not produce evidence disproving P.W.2's testimony.
  2. Evaluation of tenants' counter-assertions: The court considered tenants' claims that the landlord increased rent periodically, that vacant shops were not occupied by the landlord earlier, and that the landlord was not currently engaged in motor mechanic work but instead conducted or was associated with a driving school. The court observed that documents and affidavits filed by the landlord indicated the driving school was run by the landlord's wife or son and that vehicle registration and R.T.O. certificates supported the landlord's account of the son's involvement.
  3. Determination of bona fide requirement: Applying the legal test and the authorities cited (including the Supreme Court authority on ingredients for Section 10(3)(a)(iii)), the court concluded the landlord had established that he bona fide required the petition premises to conduct his business and had no other suitable non-residential premises in the city.
  4. Maintainability of single petition for two shops: The court analysed precedents (R. Venkatesachari; Kandasamy; T.N. Unnamalai Achi) and found that where the premises do not constitute different units serving distinct purposes, clubbing them in a single petition is permissible. On the facts, the shops occupied by father and son were not different kinds of premises and the landlord required the entire premises for his business; hence a single petition was competent.
  5. Deference to concurrent findings: Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had found bona fide requirement established; the court noted these concurrent factual findings and declined to interfere, stating that on the material before it the landlord deserved to be put in possession.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The revision petition is dismissed and the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is upheld. No costs were awarded; the time for eviction was fixed at two months.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the eviction order against the tenants is affirmed and the landlord is to be put in possession of the two shops within two months. The court approved the lower authorities' concurrent factual findings that the landlord established a bona fide requirement and that a single petition against the father-and-son occupiers was maintainable on the facts. The opinion does not purport to lay down any new legal principle beyond applying existing authorities to the facts of the case.

This summary is strictly limited to information that appears in the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond the text supplied.

Show full summary ...

    Visalakshi Nadar And Anr. v. S.K. Subramanian

    1. The tenants are the petitioners herein. They are in occupation of two shops belonging to the respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 160 for each shop. The respondent herein is a tenant in a rented premises under one Muthu at No. 22, Deenadayalan Street, T. Nagar, Madras. The respondent is doing his business in the said rented premises. He is not having any other non-residential premises of his own in the City of Madras. Hence he required the shops under the occupation of the tenants for his own use and occupation. The respondent herein sent a notice dated 6.6.1987 to the petitioners herein calling upon them to quit and deliver vacant possession. In spite of the said notice, they have not handed over possession. Hence according to the respondent herein he established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

    2. In the counter the tenants stated as under:

    It is not correct to state that the landlord required the petition premises for his own use and occupation. There is no evidence on record to show that the requirement of the landlord of the petition premises is bona fide. The landlord is in the habit of increasing the rent periodically. The rent which was at Rs. 95 in the beginning was later on raised to Rs. 160 per month. This would go to show that the landlord was increasing the rent periodically. Before filing this petition for eviction two of the shops fell vacant but the landlord did not occupy the same. The landlord filed this petition with an object of getting more rent. The tenans are in occupation of the petition premises from the year 1976 and they have expanded their business by establishing their goodwill. Since there are two shops with two separate rental agreements, one petition filed by the landlord against both the tenants is not maintainable. It was, therefore, pleaded that the landlord failed to establish his bona fide under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

    3. The landlord examined himself as P.W 1. One Rajabathar was examined as P.W. 2. The 2nd respondent examined himself as R.W. 2. The landlord filed 11 documents and the tenant filed 8 documents. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, appraising the facts arising in this case, confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenants.

    4. The tenants are father and son and they are in occupation of two shops. According to them there are two rental agreements for two shops and therefore one petition filed-by the landlord against two tenants is not maintainable. According to the landlord both the shops are occupied by the father and son and since he required both the shops for the purpose of accommodating his business which he is carrying on in a rented premises one petition filed against both the tenants is maintainable. In the case of R. Venkatesachari v. A, Judge, Court of Small Causes (1949)2 M.L.J. 784, while considering the provisions of Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XV of 1948, a Division Bench of this Court held as under:

    Though the definition of a building in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, includes a portion of the building it does not mean that the owner of a house portions of which have been let separately, cannot file an application for obtaining possession of the entire house as a building. What is sufficient for the landlord is not the real question, but whether he requires the entire building bona fide for his occupation.

    So also in Kandasamy v. Hajee K.S. Mohammed Mohideen Rowther (1982)1 M.L.J. 170, this Court while considering the provisions of Section 10(3)(a) (iii) of the Act, held that "When there is a single tenancy agreement even if the premises consists of more than one portion, a rent control application in respect of the entire premises can be maintained." Learned counsel for the landlord relied upon a decision in the case of T.N. Unnamalai Achi v. Swaminatha Pathar 93 L. W. 404, wherein while considering the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, this Court held that, "when the premises formed different units and which will come within the meaning "Building" under Section 2(ii) of the Act, the purpose which they serve would be different, the clubbing of these premises together for the purpose of obtaining the relief under the provisions of the Act will cause prejudice to the tenant. In this view, a single petition, which the landlord resorted to for evicting a tenant from the three premises cannot be countenanced. In that decision different kinds of premises were clubbed together. Hence, this decision will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case father and son occupied two shops. They are not two different units and the landlord required the entire premises. Hence on single petition is competent.

    5. According to the landlord, he required the petition premises for the purpose of accommodating his own business, which he is carrying on in a rented premises at No. 52, Deenadayalan Street, T. Nagar, Madras-17. The landlord is conducting a mechanic shop in the rented premises. According to the landlord the owner of the premises at Deenadayalan Street, is threatening to evict him. The petition premises, comprised of two shops and they are occupied by the father and the son. According to the tenants the landlord is not doing motor Mechanic business and he is not carrying on his business anywhere. In order to prove that the landlord is carrying on his motor mechanic business Ex.R-5 was filed. Ex.R-5 is a certificate given by Periyar E.V.R. This certificate was published in a souvenier released on the eve of Periyar's birthday. According to the tenants they are not denying the certificate given by Periyar E.V.R. But according to the tenants this certificate was given long back and at present there is no evidence on record to show that the landlord is carrying on his motor mechanic business. The landlord examined P.W. 2, who deposed that the landlord is working under him as a mechanic. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that he is repairing the doors of motor-cars. He further stated that since the landlord is not having any other premises of his own, he is doing his business in repairing the doors of the cars in the place belonging to P.W. 2. According to the authorities below, the evidence given by P.W. 2 is acceptable and there is no evidence on the side of the tenants to disprove the evidence given by P.W. 2. Hence, it was submitted that the landlord is carrying on his business in motor mechanic trade. According to the tenants the landlord is conducting driving school. But according to the landlord that school was conducted by his wife. Ex.P-8 was filed, which is an affidavit, showing that the said school is being conducted by the wife of the landlord. According to the tenants the landlord is conducting a driving school and he is not conducting his business in motor mechanic trade. The landlord filed Ex.P-9, Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11. According to these documents, the driving school is being conducted by the son of the landlord and not by the landlord himself. It also shows that the landlord purchased a car and changed the registration of the same in the name of his son. According to the tenants, the car was transferred by the landlord in the name of his son only after the filing of the present petition. According to the landlord his son cannot run the driving school without a car and therefore he tranferred the car in the name of his son. The R.T.O. certificate for conducting the driving school is in the name of the son of the landlord. In the reply notices sent by the tenant, it is not stated that the landlord is not carrying on his business in motor mechanic trade. The tenants are conducting grocery shop in the petition premises. Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6 would go to show that they are conducting their shop in selling rice and grocery. 6. According to the tenants one shop which has got access on both the sides where cattle fodder was being sold fell vacant and the shop which is next to it also fell vacant. But the landlord did not occupy both the shops. According to the landlord he required the petition premises for the purpose of doing his motor mechanic business. The shop in which the cattle fodder was sold contains electric meter and seven main switches. Further it is a small place and in the said portion conducting motor mechanic business is dangerous. The shop which is next to the shop in which the cattle fodder was sold is just in front of the residential portion. According to the landlord after the shop fell vacant it was not let out to anybody and the landlord is residing in the said shop. Even according to the tenants the landlord has not let out this portion for a long time to anybody. In front of the shops occupied by the tenant, there is open space. According to the landlord the vacant portion in front of the shops under the occupation of the tenant would be more useful for him to park the cars which would be entrusted to him for carrying-out the repairs. According to the landlord the vacant portion in front of the shop under his occupation cannot be utilised by him for parking the vehicles because that portion is a congested area with heavy traffic. Hence cars can be parked and repairing work can be done in front of the shops under the occupation of the tenants where there is not much traffic. There is also a drainage for draining the water. Therefore it would be suitable for the landlord to have his motor mechanic shop in that place. According to the landlord one shop will be used for the purpose of storing his tools and the other shop would be used for the purpose of doing repairing works to the vehicles. According to the tenants the portion under their occupation is not sufficient for the purpose of conducting motor mechanic business by the landlord. But it remains to be seen that the sufficiency of the portion and the conditions under which it is situate are not the concern of the tenants. It is for the landlord to decide and not for the tenants to suggest which portion of the building the landlord should ask for in a petition, filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

    7. Thus on facts the landlord established that he is carrying on his business in repairing the motor vehicles and he is doing such business in a rented premises. He is not having any other non-residential premises of his own in the City of Madras. Apart from these two factors the landlord has also established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Section 10(3)(e) of the Act. The ingredients for obtaining possession under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act are stated in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hamedia Hardware v. Mohanlal Sowcar . Both the authorities below concurrently came to the conclusion that on facts the landlord established that he deserves to be put in possession of the petition premises. In view of the foregoing reasons, the order of eviction passed by the authorities below under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is in order. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same.

    8. In the result, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Time for eviction two months.

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

    Comments

    Visalakshi Nadar And Anr. v. S.K. Subramanian
    (Aug 19, 1994)