Madras High Court

Noori Lace House vs K.S.Sureshkumar on 4 February, 2021

                                                                     C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 04.02.2021

                                                       CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                             C.R.P.(PD)No.3961 of 2012
                                               and M.P.No.1 of 2012

                     1. Noori Lace House
                        Rep by its Proprietor
                        V.M.Shamsudeen (died)
                        No.57, Ground Floor Shop,
                        Pondy Bazaar, T.Nagar,
                        Chennai - 600 017.
                     2. Umsalama Beevi
                     3. V.MS.Akbar
                     4. V.M.S.Madhar Badrudeen
                     5. V.M.S.Kamaludeen
                     6. M.Suklthana Razia
                     7. S.Sulthana Rabiya
                     8. Alli Fathima
                     9. Madhar Meera
                     10. K.Hasan Sabina
                     (Petitioners 2 to 10 brought on record
                     as the LRs of the deceased sole petitioner
                     vide Court Order dated 01.02.2021
                     made in C.M.P.No.1425 of 2021 in
                     CRP.NPD.No.3961 of 2012)                              ... Petitioners


                     Page 1 of 14


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                         C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012


                                                            Vs.

                     1. K.S.Sureshkumar
                     2. K.S.Nareshkumar                                         ... Respondents

                     Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
                     Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act 18 of 1960, to set aside the
                     fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No.189 of 2008 by the learned VIII
                     Court of Small Causes Judge at Chennai (Appellate Authority) dated
                     27.07.2012 confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.O.P.
                     No.1304 of 2006 dated 31.01.2008 by the learned XV Small Causes Judge,
                     Chennai.
                                          For Petitioners    : Mr.S.Parthasarathy

                                          For Respondents : Mr.S.Soundarajan

                                                        ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and

decreetal order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of

Small Causes, Chennai (herein after referred to as "Rent Control Appellate

Authority") in R.C.A.No.189 of 2008 confirming the fair and decreetal

order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the learned XV Judge, Small Causes

Court, Chennai (herein after referred to as "Rent Controller") in R.C.O.P.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

No.1304 of 2006, thereby allowing the eviction petition filed by the

respondents on the ground of additional accommodation.

2. The petitioners are the tenants and the respondents are the

landlords. The respondents (herein after called as 'landlords') filed petition

for eviction on the ground of willful default and additional accommodation

as against the petitioners (herein after called as tenants). The petition

premises was purchased by the landlords by the registered sale deed dated

16.03.2005, thereby attorned the tenancy in favour of the landlords and also

requested the tenants to pay the rent to the landlords. But the tenants failed

to pay the rent from the month of April, 2005 to December, 2005. Further

the landlords are running the textile business in the portion of the ground

floor of the petition premises. Therefore, the landlord filed petition for

eviction on the ground of willful default and additional accommodation.

3. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition only on the

ground of additional accommodation and dismissed the petition on the

ground of willful default. Aggrieved by the same, the landlords as well as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

the tenants filed appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority

in R.C.A.Nos.499 of 2008 & 189 of 2008 respectively. The learned Rent

Control Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals filed by the tenants

in respect of eviction on the ground of additional accommodation and the

appeal filed by the landlords as against the dismissal order of eviction

petition on the ground of willful default.

4. Aggrieved by the same the landlords filed a Civil Revision

Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.4613 of 2012 and the same was

allowed by this Court. As against which, the tenants filed a Special Leave

Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the same was

dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate petition. Thereafter

the tenants filed review petition before this Court in Review P.No.24162 of

2019 and the same is pending. In respect of the order of eviction on the

ground of additional accommodation, the tenants filed the present Civil

Revision Petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/tenants

would submit that the petition premises situated in the ground floor ad

measuring 56 sq.ft. The original tenant died and one of his son runs the

business. He is the only bread winner of entire family. The tenants occupied

in the ground floor only and the landlords running their business in the first

floor. Admittedly the second floor of the building is lying vacant and hence

they can very well expand their business in the second floor. The tenants are

paying the admitted rent promptly without fail. Now the rent has been

enhanced at Rs.1,250/- and they are paying regularly. In fact, the tenants are

ready to pay any fair rent fixed by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the

respondents/landlords submitted that the landlords are running textile

business. The petition premises situated in the cornor of Pondy Bazzar in

the entrance of T.Nagar. In the business of textile, the showcase of items are

very much important. That apart, the landlords purchased the petition

premises by the sale deed dated 16.03.2005 and attorned the tenancy in

favour of the landlord and the tenants are directed to pay the rents to them.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

Even then the tenants failed to pay the monthly rent for the months from

April 2005 to December 2005.

6.1. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in fact, the

tenants failed to pay rents to the erstwhile owner and he also filed petition

for eviction on the ground of willful default. After sold out the property, the

erstwhile landlord withdrawn the petition for eviction filed on the ground of

willful default. However, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition

for eviction only on the ground of additional accommodation. Therefore,

the landlords filed Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.4613 of 2012 and

the same was allowed as such the eviction was ordered on the ground of

willful default also.

6.2. He further submitted that the tenants cannot dictate the terms

regarding which portion is suitable to the landlord. This dictum already held

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in so many cases. In this regard, he

relied upon the judgment reported in (2014) 6 MLJ 597 in the case of

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited V. Dilbahar Singh and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

judgment dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

in Civil Appeal Nos.231- 232 of 2021 in the case of Balwant Singh @ Bant

Singh & anr Vs. Sudarshan Kumar & anr.

7. Heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners/tenants and Mr.S.Soundarajan, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondents/landlords.

8. The petitioners are the tenants and the respondents are the

landlords. The landlords filed petition for eviction on the ground of willful

default and additional accommodation of the petition premises. The petition

premises is situated in the ground floor. Adjacent to the petition premises,

the landlord are carrying the business of textile. Though the entire first floor

is occupied by the landlords, the second floor is lying vacant and not used

for their business. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the

order of eviction order on the ground of additional accommodation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

9. Insofar as the another ground of willful default is concerned

this Court already allowed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the landlords

in C.R.P.No.4613 of 2012 and ordered eviction. In fact, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India also confirmed the same by giving opportunity to

the tenants to file appropriate petition. Accordingly, the tenants filed review

petition in Rev.P.No.24162 of 2019 and it is pending. The landlords seeking

for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation to develop their

business.

10. Admittedly the landlords are running textile business. Now

they want to show case their textile materials to develop their business. As

rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

landlords, the tenant cannot dictate the landlord with regard to portion

which is suitable for expansion of business. That apart, the landlords are

running their business in the part of the portion in the ground floor and the

entire first floor. Due to expansion of business, they required the petition

premises situated in the ground floor occupied by the tenants.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

11. In this case, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and his

report and the rough sketch were marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. On perusal

of the report and the plan revealed that the second floor of the petition

premises was covered with tin sheet roofing and plastic sheets on all four

sides, which is only to prevent rain water sweeping and it is used as a

dumping yard by the landlords. Therefore, it cannot be used for the

landlords' business purpose.

12. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment reported

in (2014) 6 MLJ 597 in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited V. Dilbahar Singh as follows :-

"45. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-

appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity."

13. He also relied upon the latest judgment dated 27.01.2021,

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.231-

232 of 2021 in the case of Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh & anr Vs.

Sudarshan Kumar & anr, which held as follows :-

"11. On the above aspect, it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate..................

.........................

13. On consideration of the above aspects, the genuine need of the appellants to secure vacant possession of the premises for the proposed business is found to be established.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

According to us, the adequacy or otherwise of the space available with the landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant to dictate. The special procedure for NRI landlord was deliberately designed by the Legislature to speedily secure possession of tenanted premises for bona fide need of the NRI landlords and such legislative intent to confer the right of summary eviction, as a one time measure cannot be frustrated, without strong reason."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India repeatedly held that the tenants cannot

dictate the terms of the landlords with regard to suitable portion for

business expansion.

14. The above judgments are squarely applicable to the case on

hand. Therefore, the Court below rightly ordered the eviction petition on the

ground of additional accommodation and this Court finds no illegality or

infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. At that juncture, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/tenants seeks further time to

vacate and hand over the premises to the landlords. Considering the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.3961 of 2012

submission, the petitioners/tenants are directed to vacate the premises and

hand over to the landlords within a period of four months from today.