Madras High Court
Mr.Mois S.Attari vs Mrs.Indirani on 21 January, 2022
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022 & CMP.Nos.424 & 426/2022
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
Mr.Saifuddin [deceased]
rep.by his legal heirs
1.Mr.Mois S.Attari
2.Mr.Siraj S.Attari
3.MrsTasneem Mustafa Master
4.Mrs.Tahera Mohammed
5.Mrs.Rehana ... Petitioners in
both petitions
Vs
Mrs.Indirani ... Respondent
in both Petitions
Common Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the
Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act 18 of 1960, against the judgment and decree
dated 21.10.2021 in RCA.Nos.227 and 228 of 2014 on the file of the learned
VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in confirming the decreetal order
dated 24.02.2014 in RCOP Nos.392 and 393/2010 on the file of the learned
XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
For Petitioners in
both Petitions : Mr.S.Q.Yusuf
COMMON ORDER
(1) These Revisions challenge the orders of eviction passed by the
authorities under section 14[1][b] of the Tamilnadu Buildings [Lease
and Rent Control] Act, 1960, on the ground of demolition and
reconstruction.
(2) Admittedly, the tenanted premises forms part of a larger building in
which the petitioners herein are occupying two commercial shops,
one in the ground floor and one in the first floor. The landlady sought
for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, claiming
that the building is very old and it is situate in a commercial hub of
Chennai City. If the landlady demolishes and puts up a fresh
construction, she would have more floor space and she would get
better income.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
(3) In order to prove her financial ability, the landlady had produced
Fixed Deposit Receipts to the tune of Rs.21 lakhs and also evidence
of ownership of a Marriage Hall in Madurai City. It was also claimed
that the landlady had engaged an Architect to prepare a plan.
(4) The tenants resisted the claim for eviction on the ground that the
claim is not bona fide and the landlady had in fact demanded higher
rent in the year 2008, therefore, the request for eviction on the ground
of demolition and reconstruction in the year 2010 lacks bona fides.
It was further contended that the landlady might have had the
financial ability at the time of filing of the petition in the year 2010,
but she has subsequently lost the financial strength since she has not
paid the property tax for the subject property from the year 2016 to
2018. In order to prove the same, the tenant had produced Demand
Notices issued to the tenants by the Chennai City Municipal
Corporation demanding arrears of property tax. Those documents
were produced at the appellate stage. It is further contention of the
tenants that the building is strong and it does not require immediate
demolition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
(5) The learned Rent Controller, upon consideration of evidence on
record, concluded that the landlady had proved all the essential
requirements of Section 14[1][b] of the Act. The learned Rent
Controller referred to the evidence of the tenants and held that the
tenants had in fact admitted that, if the existing building is demolished
and reconstructed, the landlady would get more income and the
existing building is about 55 years old. On the above conclusions, the
learned Rent Controller ordered eviction.
(6) Aggrieved, the tenants preferred two appeals in RCA.Nos.227 and
228/2014.
(7) The original tenant died during the pendency of the appeals and his
legal representatives were brought on record. Before the Appellate
Court, two applications were filed by the tenants seeking to introduce
documents namely the demand notices issued by the Corporation
demanding the tenants to pay the property tax in view of the default
on the part of the landlady. Those applications were allowed and
those documents were received in evidence. After considering the
documents, the learned Appellate Authority concurred with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
conclusions of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeals.
Hence, these Revisions.
(8) The learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants would vehemently
contend that the three factors enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vijay Singh Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal reported in 1996 [6]
SCC 475 have not been satisfied. He would submit that having
demanded enhanced rent in the year 2008, the landlady's claim in the
year 2010 seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and
reconstruction lacks bona fide. The second contention of the learned
counsel is that the fact that the landlady has not paid the property tax
for the premises would show that the landlady does not have financial
strength to demolish and put up further construction. He would also
point out that there is no evidence to show that the building is old or
dilapidated and it requires immediate demolition.
(9) I am unable to countenance the contentions of the learned counsel for
the petitioners/tenants for the authorities under the Act have dealt with
the very same contentions and on consideration of the evidence on
record, rejected them. The Appellate Authority has found that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
tenants had admitted that the building is 55 years old when they were
examined in the proceedings. The lapse of time during the pendency
of the proceedings has also been taken into account by the Appellate
Authority in coming to a conclusion that the building is sufficiently
old. The learned Appellate Authority has also adverted to the
evidence of the tenants where the tenants had admitted that if the
landlady puts up a multi storeyed building, she would get better
income.
(10) The fact that the landlady is possessed of finance has been established
by Ex.P2-Fixed Deposit lying with the Karnataka Bank for a sum of
Rs.21 Lakhs and the fact that she is the owner of a Marriage Hall in
Madurai. It is not necessary for the landlady to jingle coins before the
authorities under the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control]
Act, to show her financial capacity. The very fact that she owns floor
space of 2240 sq.ft., in Pycrofts Road, which is one of the busiest
commercial localities in the City, would be proof enough for her
ability to raise funds for the construction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has time and again pointed out that the financial ability would include
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
the ability to raise money also.
(11) As regards the third contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, in Vijay Singh's case [cited supra], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that it is not for the landlord/landlady to show that the
building is old or it is likely to crumble any time. The desire of the
landlord/landlady to put up a new construction and thereby, secure
more income from the property itself has been held to be sufficient to
establish the bona fides of the landlord/landlady.
(12) The non-payment of the property tax by itself cannot be a ground to
conclude that the landlady has no means to put up further
construction. May be there was a default in payment of taxes for two
years. But, that by itself would not lead to the inference that the
landlady has become pauper. I am therefore, unable to find any
ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities
under the Act, particularly, in a revision under Section 25 of the Act,
the scope of which is very limited.
(13) Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions fail and they are accordingly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
dismissed.
(14) Considering the fact that the tenants are carrying on business in the
petition premises, the tenants are given eight months time to vacate
and hand over vacant possession subject to the condition that the
tenants shall file an Affidavit, undertaking to vacate on or before
30.09.2022. Such an affidavit shall be filed in this Court on or
before 04.02.2022. If the affidavit is not filed on or before
04.02.2022, it will be open to the landlady to execute the order of
eviction as if no time has been granted by this Court. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.01.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
Index : No
Speaking order: Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
To
1.The VII Judge
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2.The XVI Judge
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AP
CRP.NPD.Nos.71 & 72/2022
21.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
