Madras High Court
M.Mariammal vs Hotel Visaka on 18 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.R.P(MD)No.907 of 2019 (NPD)
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.5237 of 2019
M.Mariammal ... Petitioner / Appellant / Tenant
Vs.
1.Hotel Visaka,
Partnership firm,
having office at 70/7,
Balavinayagar Kovil Street,
Tuticorin.
2.A.Varadarajan (Died)
S/o.Alwarsamy,
Partner, Hotel Visaka Partnership Firm,
having Office at 70/7 Balavinayagar Kovil Street,
Tuticorin.
3.Alwar Thilakaraj,
S/o.A.Varadarajan,
Partner, Hotel Visaka Partnership Firm,
having Office at 70/7 Balavinayagar Kovil Street,
Tuticorin.
Radha Varadaraj (died)
4.V.S.Ravindran,
S/o.Varadarajan,
Partner, Hotel Visaka Partnership Firm,
having Office at 70/77 Balavinayagar Kovil Street,
Tuticorin. ... Respondents/Respondents/Landlords
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
(As per the memo dated 11.01.2021 filed by the respondents, in this order, it
is recorded that the 2nd respondent died and the respondents 3 and 4 are the
legal heirs of the deceased 2nd respondent.)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Lease
and Rent Control Act, praying to call for records relating to the judgment and
decree passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Subordinate
Judge, Thoothukudi, dated 25.01.2019 in R.C.A.No.13 of 2013, confirming
the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Rent Controller / Principal
District Munsif, Thoothukudi, dated 25.07.2013 in R.C.O.P.No.61 of 2010
and set aside the same and allow the civil revision petition by dismissing the
RCOP.
For petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
For respondents : Mr.Pon Senthil Kumaran
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant
challenging the concurrent order of eviction passed by the Courts below.
2. The case of the respondents/Landlords is that the first respondent is
a partnership firm, which runs a lodge business in the name and style of
Hotel Visaka in Door No.70/7, Bala Vinayagar Kovil Street, Tuticorin. The
respondents 2 to 4 are the partners of the said firm. For the convenience of
the inmates of the lodge, a separate building was constructed in the North
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Eastern Portion for restaurant, for which Door No.70/8 was assigned by the
Corporation. The petitioner/tenant was agreed to run a hotel in the said
premises and accordingly, he has been running a hotel under the name and
style of Hotel Brindavan for the last fifteen years and after few years later, as
per the request of the petitioner/tenant, the respondents/landlords gave few
rooms in the lodge as additional accommodation. Initially, the monthly rent
was fixed at Rs.3,000/- and thereafter, it has been periodically increased. At
present, the petitioner/tenant is paying Rs.33,000/- as monthly rent. The said
hotel premises is the 1st property mentioned in the petition. The 2nd property
is the few rooms occupied by the petitioner/tenant forming part of 55 rooms
of lodge run by the landlords. The petitioner/tenant is not proper in paying
rent and in maintaining hotel, which causes nuisance for the inmates of the
lodge. Due to expansion of city and competition in the hotel business, in the
year 2000 the respondents / landlords have decided to give face lift to the
existing structure and demolish the structure in D.No.70/8. The few lodge
rooms occupied by the petitioner/tenant are also required for additional
accommodation. Therefore, the respondents / landlords requested the
petitioner/tenant to give vacant possession from May, 2000. Though the
petitioner/tenant initially prayed time for shifting and expanded his business
by starting two more branches in Thoothukudi ie., Hotel Brindavan in
Banumathi Theatre Complex and another Hotel Banu Brindavan Green Park
at Palayamkottai, she did not give vacant possession of the building. Hence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the respondents/landlords filed RCOP on the ground of demolition and
reconstruction, causing nuisance and for additional accommodation.
3. The case of the revision petitioner/tenant is that she has not been
causing any nuisance. She has been paying rent regularly. Few lodge
rooms stated to be occupied by petitioner/tenant as additional
accommodation for rent are being used as Office and rest room. The
respondents/landlords have no intention to demolish the schedule property
to give a face lift to the existing structure and they do not have any financial
capacity. The building is in sound and stable and it does not require
demolition and reconstruction. The respondents/landlords are having
sufficient rooms to carry on their lodge business and therefore, additional
accommodation does not require. The respondents/landlords are planning
to evict the petitioner/tenant without any valid reason.
4. Before the Rent Controller, on the side of the
respondents/landlords, PW1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked
and on the side of the petitioner/tenant, RW1 to RW3 were examined and
Ex.R1 was marked. The Rent Controller, after hearing both sides, allowed
the RCOP on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, and additional
accommodation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/tenant has filed
appeal in R.C.A.No.13 of 2013. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal and thereby, confirmed the order
of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgment of the Courts
below, the petitioner/tenant has come up with this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant mainly contended that
the respondents/landlords erroneously filed a single eviction petition for two
different properties on two different grounds ie., hotel premises on the
ground of demolition and reconstruction and the few rooms in the lodge
premises on the ground of additional accommodation. Therefore, the Rent
Control Original Petition itself is not maintainable. The Courts below, wihtout
considering the above aspect, have erroneously granted the relief sought for
by the respondents/landlords. Thus, he prayed to allow this revision petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords
submitted that the above ground has not been raised by the petitioner/tenant
any where in the proceedings and it is for the first time raised before this
Court and therefore, the same may be eschewed. Further, there is no
provision in the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act preventing
the landlord seeking eviction of tenant from two premises on different
grounds. Thus, he prayed to dismiss this revision petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the records carefully. It is seen that a memo dated 11.01.2021 has been
filed by the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords stating that the 2nd
respondent died, leaving behind the 3rd and 4th respondents as his legal
heirs. The said memo is hereby recorded.
8. Admittedly, in this case, there is no dispute with regard to landlord
and tenant relationship. The building is situated in the heart of the Town. It
is also not in dispute that the hotel premises was constructed on the North
Eastern Portion of the lodge premises, for the convenience of the inmates of
the lodge and it was let out to the petitioner/tenant. After some time, the few
rooms in the lodge were also let out to the petitioner/tenant for office purpose
as additional accommodation. The respondents/landlords wanted the hotel
premises on the grounds of demolition and reconstruction and nuisance and
the few rooms of the lodge on the ground of additional accommodation.
Both the Courts below held that except the ground of nuisance, the other
grounds have been proved by the respondents/landlords.
9. According to the respondents/landlords, due to competition in the
lodge business, they wanted to give a face lift to the existing structure by
demolishing the hotel premises and it was informed to the petitioner/tenant
in the year 2000 and she agreed to shift her business and sought time, for
which she has also given a letter - Ex.P14. But, she did not shift her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
business and give vacant possession. Ex.P10 shows that the
petitioner/tenant, though expanded her business, did not give vacant
possession of the premises of the respondents/landlords saying that there is
no necessity to demolish the building.
10. So far as the ground of demolition and reconstruction is
concerned, it is well settled that the condition of the building is not sole
criterion, whether the intention of the landlord is bona fide or mala fide has to
be considered. It is not in dispute that the building is situated in the heart of
the town. Modern buildings have come up in and around the schedule
property. A landlord has every right to decide as to how the new
construction has to put up for better use and for extra income. It is stated
that in order to compete in the business, the respondents/landlords wanted
to construct a modern building by demolishing the hotel premises. In order to
show their bona fide, the respondents/landlords have produced the building
plans – Exs.P4 and P7, and Ex.P6 – Bank receipts to show their financial
capacity. More over, it is seen that having agreed to vacate the premises
and even after expanding the business, the petitioner/tenant did not vacate
the premises with mala fide intention. So far as the additional
accommodation is concerned, it is stated by the landlords that the few rooms
in the lodge required for lodge purposes. Both the Courts below have
concurrently found that the intention of the respondents/landlords is bona
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
fide. This Court does not find any valid reason to interfere with the said
findings of the Courts below.
11. The main ground on which the petitioner/tenant wanted to set
aside the concurrent eviction order of the Courts below is that single petition
for eviction of the tenant from two different schedule of properties is not
maintainable. Admittedly, in this case, the hotel premises was constructed
only in a portion of the land where the lodge business has been running by
the landlords. The hotel premises was let out for running hotel and the few
rooms in the lodge were let out for office purpose to the petitioner/tenant.
Though it is stated by the petitioner/tenant that two separate properties were
let out on two different times, this Court is of the view that as there are
common questions of law and fact arising between the same parties and in
respect of different portions of the same property, there would be nothing
illegal in one eviction petition being entertained and tried in respect of the
entire premises,. Such an approach is in the interest of justice has the effect
of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. In short, there is no legal bar on the
landlord claiming eviction of the tenant from a totality of the premises
irrespective of the fact that whether they had been rented out at different
times or under one rent note or two rent notes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
also in the decision in S.M.Gopalkrishna Chetty Vs. Ganeshan and others,
reported in AIR 1975 SC 1750, has held that a single petition with regard to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
two different tenancies in the same premises, one for residential purpose
and other for non residential purpose is maintainable. Thus, viewing from
any angle, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The
petitioner/tenant is directed to give vacant possession of both the premises
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also
dismissed.
18.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
bala
To
1.The Subordinate Judge /
Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Principal District Munsif /
Rent Controller,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala
C.R.P(MD)No.907 of 2018
18.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
