Madras High Court
Umedmal B. Jain vs Suraj Devi on 21 September, 2023
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
and CMP.Nos.10705, 10744, 10746, 10750, 10755 & 10764 of 2021
CRP(NPD)No.1382 of 2021
Umedmal B. Jain .. Petitioner
vs
Suraj Devi .. Respondent
Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
01.12.2020, passed by the Learned VII Court of Small Causes at
Chennai, Appellate Authority, in RCA.No.712 of 2017, confirming the
fair and decretal order dated 31.08.2017 made learned X Court of Small
Causes, Chennai in RCOP.No.1990 of 2011 and thereby dismiss the
petition filed for eviction.
(In all CRPs)
For Petitioners : Ms.Tanya Kapoor
For Respondent : Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
These civil revision petitions have been preferred by the tenants.
There is no dispute in the jural relationship of landlady and tenants. For
the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as landlady and
tenants.
2.The landlady launched applications in R.C.O.P.Nos.1990, 1992,
1993, 1994, 1995 and 1998 of 2011 on the ground that her sons Kiran
Raj Jain, Dinesh Kumar Jain and Praveen Kumar Jain are carrying on
business in a rented premises. According to her, her sons' business is
growing in very huge volumes and therefore they are not in a position to
find enough space to accommodate their goods and to consult and meet
their clients. She would state that the existing rented premises in which
they are currently carrying on business i.e. No.56, Narayana Mudali
Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai is not suitable for expansion of the business.
She also stated that she has no other buildings in the City of Chennai and
existing business would be sufficient for the business purposes of her
sons. Even on the date of filing of the RCOPs, the landlady was about 63
years old.
3.On being served with notice each of the tenants entered
appearance and filed a detailed counter. The stand that they had taken in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
the counter is that there is a vacant shop in the ground floor of the
premises and another shop had been vacated recently by one firm by
name “Sangeetha Toys” and that there is a suppression of facts by the
landlady to overcome the statutory provisions relating to additional
accommodation and also that the Court has to consider the relative
hardship between the eviction of the tenants vis-a-vis their continuance
in the property.
4.The tenants also pleaded that the landlady is the owner of the
premises in Moolakadai, Vepery High Road, Kondithoppu and several
other places. They would also state that the sons themselves are owners
of other premises and therefore, they are not entitled to seek for eviction.
The tenants will plea that they are in occupation of the premises for more
than 20 years and therefore, if the petition filed for eviction is allowed,
they would be put to cause irreparable hardship.
5.The matter went to trial before the learned Rent Controller, who
recorded the summary of proceedings. The Rent Controller was satisfied
that the requirements of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (in short 'Act') have been
satisfied and consequently ordered eviction.
6.Aggrieved by the same, the tenants filed R.C.A.Nos.712, 713,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
714, 715, 716 & 718 of 2017. The Rent Control Appellate Authority
agreed with the findings returned by the Rent Controller and ordered
eviction.
7.Against the concurrent findings on both the bonafide
requirement of the landlady as well as on the orders of eviction, these
civil revision petitions have been presented before this Court.
8.When the matter came up before this Court, notice was issued to
the respondent and has been listed today before me for the purpose of
admission.
9. I heard Ms.Tanya Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners/tenants and Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent/landlady.
10.Ms.Tanya Kapoor launched several attacks against the findings
of the Rent Controller as confirmed by the Appellate Authority. They are
as follows:
(i) The landlady had vacant shop in her possession in the ground
floor and subsequently another tenant has vacated the premises. The
landlady's sons did not occupy the said premises, which tells upon the
bonafides of the requirement.
(ii) Two shops having become vacant, the landlady is deemed to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
in possession of the property and therefore, Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the
Act is not the applicable provision, but the applicable provision would be
Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.
(iii) The landlady's family has other premises and therefore, it does
not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
(iv) The trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court did not
consider the comparative hardship that the tenants would suffer in case
of eviction as against the requirements of the landlord.
(v) Expanding on the previous point, Ms.Kapoor would submit
that the tenants have developed a fantastic reputation in the market and
therefore, if eviction is ordered, they will suffer serious prejudice.
(vi) She would point out that the landlady having filed a petition
for fixation of fair rent is not entitled to seek for eviction on the grounds
of bonafide requirement.
(vii) She would then point out the lack of pleading on the part of
the landlady with respect to the buildings owned by her sons in other
areas in Chennai and therefore, it does not satisfy the statutory
framework of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
(viii) She would submit that two shops that the landlady had
subsequently let out was found to be on an understanding that they will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
vacate and handover possession on the other eight tenants vacating and
this understanding have not been proved.
(ix) In fine, the argument of Ms.Kapoor is that the bonafide
requirement of the landlady had not been proved and therefore, she wants
the civil revision petitions to be allowed and the orders of eviction
should be set aside.
11. I have carefully considered the arguments of Ms.Tanya
Kapoor, I will have to address each one of them separately.
12. Insofar as the requirements of the landlord under Section
10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has
correctly laid down the position of law, namely, that the landlord must
prove the following:
(i)The building that had been let out is for non-residential
purposes.
(ii)The landlord or any member of his family should be carrying on
business on the date of application for eviction.
(iii)The landlord should not be occupying any building belonging
to him or his family members on his own within the City of Chennai.
(iv)The claim should be bonafide and not found to be a false
attempt to throw out the tenant from the premises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
13.Let us apply the law that has been laid down above to the facts
of the present case. It is not in dispute that the landlady's sons are doing
business at No.56, Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai. The
nature of their business is dealing with paper products and supplying it to
their customers in and around the said area. The landlady's sons are
occupying shops which belong to a third party. They are tenants in
someone else property for the business that they are doing. In order to
prove that they are tenants under one Padmini Bai, who is the owner of
No.56, Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai, they have marked
Ex.P8, which shows that the aforesaid property had been leased out to
the landlady's sons for business purposes.
14.In order to prove that they are doing business, they have
marked Exs.P8, P9, P10 and P32 to show that one Masseyes Enterprises
is having a business dealing with their entity, M/s.Million Papier Private
Ltd. These documents bring forth to the Court, the factum
(i)that the landlady's sons are carrying on business on the date of
filing of the petition,
(ii)that they are in occupation of rented premises belonging to
Padmini Bai and
(iii)that the business is being carried on in a bonafide manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
15.The tenants did not let in evidence to show that the landlady's
sons are not carrying on business and that it is an invented story by the
landlady in order to throw them out of the premises unfairly.
16.Insofar as the argument that two shops have been kept vacant
on the date of filing of the RCOP and the landlady's sons did not occupy
the same, the answer is found in the evidence of PW1. He has
categorically stated that there are totally 10 shops in the building which
belongs to the landlady, which are the subject matter of eviction
proceedings. All the shops put together will bring about 1200 sq. ft. in
which they can store upto two tonnes of paper material. If the landlady's
sons want to do business, they cannot occupy the premises one by one
and thereafter expand the same. As seen from above, the petition itself
was meant for the purpose of expansion of the business which they are
carrying on in a rented premises.
17.The factum that they are storing materials at Royapuram has
been brought about during the course of evidence. The landlady's sons
are utilising the premises situated at Old No.32, New No.17, North
Railway Terminus Road, Royapuram for the purpose of a warehouse.
The evidence of PW1 read with the documents of business make it clear
that most of their business requirements are met with in and around
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
Sowcarpet area where the petition mentioned premise is situate.
18. It is too much on part of the tenants to expect that the
landlady's sons must pay third party rentals and also suffer huge
transportation cost for the purpose of transportation of goods from
Royapuram to Sowcarpet, when their own premises at Sowcarpet is
available and when it is easier to store their materials therein.
19.The result of this discussion is that the two shops which were
vacant are not suitable for storing their entire materials which they are
currently having in Royapuram. If I were to accept the arguments of
Ms.Kapoor, then not only should the landlord continue to pay
Rs.34,831/- as rents for the warehouse in Royapuram, but, they should
store materials also in the premises at Sowcarpet. That will be a logistical
nightmare for the landlady's sons to do their business. The landlady's
sons need not suffer in order to satisfy the whims of the tenants to prove
their bonafide. The shops being 100 sq. ft. each, it is hardly sufficient for
the landlady's sons to store their materials. Therefore, the requirement of
the entire shops for expansion of their business and shifting of their
business from rented premises to the own premises of the landlady is a
bonafide requirement.
20.The next aspect which Ms.Tanya Kapoor argued was that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
petition should have been filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and not
under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. This is on the ground that two
shops having been vacated, it should be deemed to be in possession of
the landlady and therefore, since she is occupying a portion of the
premises, Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is inapplicable and the
provision applicable is Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.
21.Section 10(3)(c) of the Act requires the landlady to be in actual
possession of the premises and not in legal or constructive possession
thereof. The fine distinction between the legal possession and actual
possession is not one contemplated under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. A
landlord who is in occupation of a portion of a premises is entitled to ask
for eviction only on the ground of Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. However,
in the present case, the landlady has not occupied the premises which fell
vacant pursuant to the “Sangeetha Toy Shop” vacating. Since the
landlord is not in actual possession of the premises, the appropriate
application that should have been filed is only under Section 10(3)(a)(iii)
of the Act and not under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.
22.This will also dispose of the other argument on comparative
hardship. The relative hardship is a requirement under Section 10(3)(c)
of the Act and not under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
neither the Rent Controller nor the Appellate Authority fell in error in not
taking into consideration the said aspect. The requirements of Section
10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act have been set forth above and comparative
hardship is not one such requirement by the statute.
23.Ms.Tanya Kapoor then would turn to the argument that the
landlady's sons are in occupation of other premises. It has been recorded
by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority that the
landlady does not have any other property in her name in the City of
Chennai. She has also made the requisite pleading in paragraph No.4 in
the petition for eviction. Reading Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act
according to me, the petitioner who seeks for eviction should not own
any other property. If I were to read the way Ms.Tanya Kapoor wants me
to read the provision, then, if the landlady's sons had own property then,
the landlady would not be entitled to file an application for eviction.
Such a requirement is not found in the Act.
24. Insofar as the argument that the petitioners will suffer hardship
because the civil revision petitioners have developed a very good
reputation in the market is concerned, I feel this argument goes in favour
of the landlady and not in favour of the tenants. If the tenants have built a
good reputation in the business, then the customers will flock to them,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
wherever they go. It is not dependent upon the place of business. In other
words, if the tenants were to move to an adjacent or nearby premises in
Sowcarpet, the customers will continue to come to them and they will not
stop on account of the fact that there are peculiarities in the building
which is occupied by them presently, which brings the customers for the
purpose of their business.
25.Furthermore, if such a reputation has been built and even if
comparative hardship were to apply, then I would have to see whether
the hardship of a person doing a business in the rental premises is less
than the hardship of a person, who has garnered very good reputation in
the market. The answer to this question is that the hardship of the
landlord would be more for he will not only be paying for the purpose of
transportation of his materials, but also incurring huge cost in a rented
premises for storing his materials.
26. Insofar as the argument that the filing of the fair rent petition
shows that the landlady does not have bonafide requirements for
eviction, in this too, I am not with Ms.Tanya Kapoor.
27.Filing of the Rent Control Original Proceedings for fixation of
fair rent is an exercise of a statutory right by the landlord for the property
which is under the occupation of the tenants. Exercise of a statutory right
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
conferred on a landlord cannot militate another provision namely,
Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It has been seen over the period of nearly
six decades that the Rent Control Act was in force, that a landlord can
simultaneously launch an application for eviction as well as file a
petition for fixation of fair rent. It will be too much on my part to state
that the landlord till the eviction proceedings are over, cannot seek for
fixation of fair rent. The landlady has only gone above exercising her
statutory right and therefore, I will not put Section 4 against Section
10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
28.Furthermore, Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act does not have any
such statutory bar. If I were to agree with Ms.Kapoor, then I will be re-
writing the Statute stating, filing an application under Section 4 of the
Rent Control Act would be a bar for filing a petition under Section 10(3)
of the Act. Such a provision being absent and since I am not having the
powers to amend the statute, I am constrained to reject the said argument.
29.The next submission was on the lack of pleadings on part of the
landlord. Insofar as the lack of pleadings is concerned, I have to re-
collect that I am dealing with a Rent Control proceeding which is, but a
summary proceeding. The tribunal is not bound by the strict rigours of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
30. I have gone through the pleadings and I find, all the necessary
statutory requirements were pleaded and therefore there is no
requirement to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of pleadings. In
addition, the argument of Ms.Tanya Kapoor that the landlady has not
pleaded that she does not have any other premises is erroneous. I see
from paragraph No.4 there is a specific pleading to that effect. It is not
the requirement of the Rent Control Act that the landlady should give the
details of all the properties hold by her family members for the purpose
of seeking eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. I have already
held, if the landlady does not have any other property in her name, she
can seek for eviction on the grounds of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act,
irrespective of the fact that her sons might own other properties.
31. Finally I turn to the argument of Ms.Tanya Kapoor the
understanding with the new tenants, who had been inducted, that they
will handover possession of the property on the eviction petitions being
allowed, has not been proved. Nothing prevented the tenants to summon
the new tenants, who have been inducted in the vacant shops measuring
about 100 sq. ft. each to the Court and demonstrating by giving positive
proof that there was no such understanding. The understanding is
between the landlord and the new tenants and the landlord had entered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
the witness box and had stated so. The Rent Controller, who had the
benefit of seeing the witnesses has been convinced with the statement.
The Appellate Authority, which is the final Court of facts, has also
appreciated the said evidence and has come to the conclusion that the
understanding exists.
32. Sitting in revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, I am not in a position to
re-appreciate the evidence. I can interfere with the findings only if they
have been perverse, illegal or irregular. None of these three vices are
found in the impugned orders of the Courts below. Consequently, I am
not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below.
33. In fine, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. Time for
eviction is three months. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
vs
To
1.The VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The X Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
vs
C.R.P(NPD)Nos.1382, 1385, 1386,
1387, 1388 & 1389 of 2021
and CMP.Nos.10705, 10744, 10746,
10750, 10755 & 10764 of 2021
21.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
