Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

C.R.P(NPD) No. 2427 of 2010 and M.P No. 1 of 2010

Attorney(S)

T. Karunakaran, Advocate for Petitioner.
R. Thiagarajan, Advocate for Respondent.

Judges

G. Rajasuria, J.

Acts

Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Section 10(3)(a)(iii)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This Civil Revision Petition challenges the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2010 of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in R.C.A. No. 8 of 2009, which confirmed the order and decree dated 10.02.2009 of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee (Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P. No. 15 of 2008.

The Respondent (Landlord) filed an RCOP seeking eviction on the ground of personal occupation invoking Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The RCOP was contested by the Tenant. During enquiry the Landlord examined himself as PW1 and another witness as PW2 and marked Exhibits P1 to P9. The Tenant examined himself as RW1 and marked Exhibits R1 to R10. The Rent Controller ordered eviction; that order was appealed and the appellate court affirmed. Aggrieved, the Tenant (Revision Petitioner) filed this Revision petition on various grounds.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Landlord is in bona fide requirement of the premises for his own occupation?
Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below warranting interference in this Revision?

Arguments of the Parties

Revision Petitioner (Tenant) - Arguments

The Landlord's claim of personal occupation is not bona fide; the intention is to evict the Tenant by impermissible means, including attempted forcible dispossession and threats involving police assistance, and only subsequently filing the RCOP.
Both Courts below overreached by assuming facts not properly supported by pleadings, treating evidence about the Landlord being a tenant of another premises in Abiramapuram as determinative without adequate backing in the pleadings.
The RCOP averments show the Landlord was settled in Abiramapuram, and therefore he was not justified in claiming he required the demised premises for his own occupation.
The Tenant prays for setting aside the orders of both Courts below and dismissal of the RCOP by allowing the Revision.

Respondent (Landlord) - Arguments

The Landlord has no other building of his own to occupy in the city of Chennai.
The Landlord is occupying a tenanted premises in Abiramapuram at a much higher rent (stated as Rs. 10,600 per month in submissions) while deriving only Rs. 2,900 per month from the demised premises; thus he is justified in requiring the demised premises for his own occupation.
As a retired official, the Landlord faces pressure from his own Landlord to pay higher rent, making continued occupation of the Abiramapuram tenanted premises unsustainable.
There are no sufficient or clinching grounds to set aside the orders of the Courts below; the Landlord prays for dismissal of the Revision.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and others, 1998 MLJ (Supp) 18	Explains requirement under the Act (reference to Section 14(1)(e) within the cited passage) that a landlord claiming bona fide occupation must show he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.	The court relied on this principle to emphasize inquiry into whether the landlord has any other reasonably suitable accommodation and to treat that inquiry as integral to assessing bona fides.
Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies, 1996 (5) SCC 344	This decision was cited in Ram Narain Arora as supporting authority (the specific principle from this case is not detailed in the provided opinion).	The opinion records that Ram Narain Arora relied on this decision to support the High Court's view; the present court refers to Ram Narain Arora and its reliance on Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar.
Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, 1988 (3) SCC 131	This decision was cited in Ram Narain Arora as supporting authority (the specific principle from this case is not detailed in the provided opinion).	The opinion records that Ram Narain Arora relied on this decision; the present court refers to Ram Narain Arora and its reliance on Ram Dass.
Sankaranarayanan v. Palaniswami, 1995 (2) CTC 452	Sets out the conditions for obtaining possession of a non-residential building under Section 10(3)(a)(iii): (a) building non-residential; (b) landlord carrying on business at the time of application; (c) landlord not occupying any other non-residential building for business; (d) claimant's requirement must be bona fide and not for oblique motives.	The court used this authority to highlight and clarify that a landlord should not have other premises in the same city and that the requirement must be bona fide; it informed the court's evaluation of the landlord's claim.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying the central factual findings made by the lower courts: the Landlord is a retired official residing in a tenanted premises at Abiramapuram and was found to be paying rent for that tenanted premises (the lower courts found the rent at Rs. 6,800 per month as correctly found by both courts below, with subsequent submissions that the rent rose to Rs. 10,600 per month). The lower courts also found that the Landlord's landlord was demanding increased rent which the Respondent could not afford.

The court considered relevant authorities interpreting the statutory requirement that a landlord must have no other reasonably suitable accommodation to establish bona fide requirement (as explained in the excerpt from Ram Narain Arora and the conditions in Sankaranarayanan). Relying on those authorities, the court observed that the inquiry into bona fides necessarily involves consideration of whether the claimant has any reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere.

Applying these principles to the facts, the court accepted the finding that the Landlord was paying substantial rent for the Abiramapuram tenanted premises and that the Landlord could legitimately seek to obtain a residence of his own when his outgoings exceeded what he received from the demised premises. The court rejected the Tenant's contention that the Landlord's landlord should have been examined to prove the rents being demanded; the court found it unreasonable to require the Respondent to call his own landlord as a witness to establish his claim.

The court also invoked maxims (noting them descriptively) to underscore that a landlord is the regulator and disposer of his own property and that external acts may indicate internal purposes; however, the court limited the application of strict pleadings-based rules in rent control proceedings. Concluding there was nothing to doubt the Landlord's bona fides, the court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and found no perversity or illegality in their orders.

Finally, though dismissing the Revision, the court considered the Tenant's request for time to vacate and, in the interest of justice, granted a six-month period to vacate subject to conditions (payment of arrears within 15 days, prompt payment of future rent, and filing of an affidavit of undertaking within 15 days). The court also allowed the Landlord to file an eviction petition (E.P.) immediately if there was any default.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Revision is dismissed. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the Landlord's requirement of the demised premises for personal occupation was bona fide and that there was no perversity or illegality in the orders below.

Direct implications and orders:

The Revision Petitioner/Tenant shall vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the Respondent/Landlord within six months from the date of the order.
This vacating order is subject to the condition that the entire arrears be paid within 15 days from the date of the order and that future monthly rents be promptly paid; in the event of any default the Respondent/Landlord may file an eviction petition (E.P.) immediately, even before the six-month vacating period expires.
The Revision Petitioner must file an affidavit of undertaking to these effects within fifteen days from the date of the order.
No costs were awarded; the Revision is dismissed and the miscellaneous petition is closed.

Broader implications: The opinion applies established principles concerning bona fide requirement and the necessity of showing absence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation; it does not announce any novel precedent or enlarge legal doctrine beyond applying existing authorities to the facts of the case.

Show full summary ...

V.S Bhavani Shankar Petitioner v. S. Ganesan

1. Inveighing the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2010 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in R.C.A No. 8 of 2009 confirming the order and decree dated 10.02.2009 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee (Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P No. 15 of 2008, this Civil Revision Petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Tersely and briefly, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Revision would run thus:

(a) The Respondent herein filed the RCOP seeking eviction on the ground of personal occupation by invoking Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The matter was contested.

(b) During enquiry, on the side of the Landlord, the Landlord examined himself as PW1 along with PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the Tenant, the Tenant himself as RW1 and marked Exs. R1 to R10.

(d) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of both the Courts below, the Tenant preferred this Revision on various grounds.

4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would advance his argument, which could tersely and pithily be set out thus:

(i) The contention of the Landlord that he requires the demised premises for his personal occupation is not actuated by bona fides but his intention is only to evict the Tenant by hook or by crook. Even the Landlord tried to dispossess the Tenant forcibly but it ended in a fiasco. He also threatened to evict him with the police assistance, but that also did not fructify. Subsequently only the RCOP was filed to evict the Tenant.

(ii) Both the Courts below over stretched their jurisdiction and of their own accord assumed and presumed as though the Landlord who happened to be the Tenant of one other premises in Abiramapuram was handicapped in paying more rent and because of that alone he was constrained to seek eviction and any amount of evidence without the backing of the pleadings should be eschewed.

(iii) The averments in the RCOP would display and demonstrate that he got settled in Chennai Abiramapuram and in such a case, he was not justified in contending that he wants his own premises for occupying it.

Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner prays for setting aside the order of both the Courts below and for dismissing the RCOP, by allowing this Revision.

5. By way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Landlord would advance his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus:

(i) Indubitably and indisputably, the Landlord is having no other building of his own to occupy in the city of Chennai.

(ii) The Landlord is occupying a Tenanted premises in Abiramapuram by paying a huge rent of Rs. 10,600/- per month whereas from the demised premises, he is deriving only a rent of Rs. 2,900/- per month and in such a case, he was perfectly justified in requiring the demised premises for his own occupation.

(iii) As a retired official he has to pay to his Landlord and also succumb to the pressure of his Landlord even to pay still more higher rent than the rent which he is now paying.

(iv) Absolutely, there is no sufficient ground much less clinching ground for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below.

Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Landlord prays for dismissing this Revision.

6. The points for consideration are as to:

1. Whether the Landlord is in bona fide requirement of the premises for his own occupation? and

2. Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below warranting interference in this Revision?

Point No. 1:

7. I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decisions, which emerged under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act:

(i) Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and others, 1998 MLJ (Supp) 18 certain excerpts from it would run thus:

“8.….. Therefore, he submitted relying on the decisions in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies, 1996 (5) SCC 344 and Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, 1988 (3) SCC 131, that the view taken by the High Court must be upheld.

9. Section 14(1)(e) of the Act read as follows:

“14(1)(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the Landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the Landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.'

(Italics supplied)

10. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the Landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the Landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the Landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has reasonably suitable accommodation, then necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances, further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the Landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defeat the claim of the Landlord.”

(ii) Sankaranarayanan v. Palaniswami, 1995 (2) CTC 452, certain excerpts from it would run thus:

“8. …. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) deals with the conditions for obtaining possession of a non-residential building. The conditions required are:

(a) The building should be non-residential in character.

(b) The Landlord should be carrying on business on the date of his applying for eviction.

(d) The Landlord's claim is bona fide for his business needs and not based on oblique motives like trying to obtain more rent or to harass the Tenant.”

A mere poring over and perusal of those decisions would highlight and spotlight that the Landlord should not have any other premises of his own in the same city other than the demised premises and his requirement should be bona fide.

8. Viewing the matter in the wake of aforesaid dictum, it is clear that here, the Landlord happened to be a retired official and undoubtedly he is residing in a Tenanted premises at Abiramapuram for a monthly rent of Rs. 6,800/- as correctly found by both the Courts below. The Courts below also gave a finding to the effect that the Landlord's Landlord relating to the Abiramapuram premises was demanding more rent, which the Respondent herein/Landlord could not pay. It is also not open for the Tenant to mandate or command that the Respondent/Landlord should satisfy himself by being in the said Abiramapuram Tenanted premises by paying more rent.

9. I recollect and call up the maxim - Rerum suarum quilibet est moderator et arbiter − Everyone is the regulator and disposer of his own property.

10. Keeping in mind the above proposition and also the decisions set out supra, it is clear that it is not for the Tenant to dictate as to how the Landlord has to shape and size, control and contain his own desire in seeking shelter. The Landlord here convincingly pointed out that as a retired official he could not pay the monthly rent of Rs. 6,800/-, while he was deriving only a sum of Rs. 2,900/- from his own house situated within the Madras city. It is not for the Tenant to suggest that once the Landlord has chosen to occupy a Tenanted premises, he should continue to remain there and he should not disturb the Revision Petitioner herein by getting him evicted from the demised premises.

11. I recollect and call up the following maxim - Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta - External acts indicate undisclosed thoughts - along with the maxim judicis est judicare secundum allegata et probata - It is the duty of a Judge to decide according to facts alleged and proved. The second maxim cited supra cannot in stricto sensu be applied to the Rent Control proceedings even though it could be pressed into service in the regular Civil proceedings.

12. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Landlord while advancing his arguments also stated that subsequently his client is paying an enhanced rent of Rs. 10,600/- per month. There is nothing to exemplify and indicate, establish or project that the Landlord is uttering out any falsehood regarding the payment of his rent to his Landlord relating to the Abiramapuram Tenanted premises.

13. The contention on the side of the Revision Petitioner that the Respondent's Landlord namely, Mrs. Viji Arunkumar was not examined to prove all those facts, is a far fetched one as the Respondent/Landlord cannot be expected to examine his Landlord relating to his Tenanted premises to establish his case and such an expectation would lead to demanding something, which the Respondent herein/Landlord cannot carry out.

14. Accordingly, if viewed both the Courts below au fait with law and au courant with facts dealt with the matter and held that there is nothing to doubt the bona fides of the Landlord in seeking eviction of the Tenant and accordingly passed orders, warranting no interference by this Court in this Revision.

15. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is decided in favour of the Landlord and as against the Tenant.

Point No. 2:

16. In view of the ratiocination adhered to by me supra in deciding point No. 1, I could see no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below.

17. Point No. 2 is decided accordingly.

18. In the result, I could see no merit in this Revision and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

19. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ Tenant would make an extempore submission to the effect that the Tenant would require six months' time to vacate the premises as he is facing some difficulties in finding alternative accommodation, for which the learned Counsel for the Landlord would oppose.

20. I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice, six months' time could be granted for vacating the premises. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

(i) The Revision Petitioner/Tenant shall vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the Respondent/Landlord within six months' from this date subject to the condition that the entire arrears should be paid within 15 days from this date and the future monthly rents should be promptly paid and if there is any default, it is open for the Respondent/Landlord to file E.P at once, i.e, even before the time stipulated for vacating the premises by the Tenant.

(ii) The Revision Petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking to the aforesaid effect within fifteen days from this date.

21. With the above direction, this Revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

PBB

V.S Bhavani Shankar Petitioner v. S. Ganesan

Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Revision Petitioner (Tenant) - Arguments

Respondent (Landlord) - Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

V.S Bhavani Shankar Petitioner v. S. Ganesan

Comments