Madras High Court
H.Balaraman vs M.J.Sivasachidanandam on 30 April, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14436 of 2020
H.Balaraman ... Petitioner
Vs.
M.J.Sivasachidanandam ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to set aside the impugned order
dated 13.12.2019 made 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.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Chidambaram
For Respondent : M/s.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
ORDER
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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. 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;atpyi
; y vd;W Fwpg;gpl;oUf;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mjw;F
Kd;g[ ehd; Efh;bghUs; if tpd [ pnahk; bra;a[k; ntiy bra;J
te;njd/; me;j ntiyia v';F bra;njd; vd;why; vd;Dila
tPlL
; 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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
,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 Fwpgg; pl;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; mwpfi ; f 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;itapll; hh; vd;why;
njjp vdf;F rhpahf "hgfkpy;iy/ ve;j tUlj;jpy; ghh;itapll; hh;
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
; bfhLj;Js;nsd; vd;whYk; rhpay;y/”
ePjpkd;wj;jpwF
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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. 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 :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
,Uf;fpwhh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ fl;ol ,oj;J tplL ; bjhHpy;
bra;a ,Uf;fpnwdh vd;why; xt;bthU filf;F ,ilna cs;s
xw;iwf;fy; Rtiu ,oj;J tplL ; 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";r; hg; 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 tplL
; 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
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.
30.04.2021
raja
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
To
1. The IXth Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai
2. The XVth Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,
raja
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2301 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14436 of 2020
30.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
