Madras High Court
Hitesh Purohit vs Suraj Devi on 17 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 08.10.2025 Order pronounced on : 17.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.No.2346 of 2023
& CMP.No.14363 of 2023
Hitesh Purohit ... Petitioner
Vs.
Suraj Devi ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the judgment and
decree dated 19.04.2023 passed by the VII Court of Small Causes at
Chennai, Appellate Authority, in R.C.A.No.717 of 2017, confirming the
order dated 31.08.2017 made by the X Court of Small Causes, Chennai in
R.C.O.P.No.1997 of 2011 and thereby dismiss.
For Petitioner : Ms.Tanya Kapoor
For Respondents : Mr.V.Manohar
for Mr.A.Ilayaperumal
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 19.04.2023 passed by the VII Court of Small Causes at
Chennai, Appellate Authority, in R.C.A.No.717 of 2017, confirming the
order dated 31.08.2017 made by the X Court of Small Causes, Chennai in
R.C.O.P.No.1997 of 2011.
2.The petitioner/tenant, in respect of a non-residential premises,
having suffered concurrent orders of eviction before the Rent Controller as
well as the Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner.
3.I have heard Ms.Tanya Kapoor, learned counsel for the
petitioner/tenant and Mr.V.Manohar for Mr.A.Ilayaperumal, learned counsel
for the respondent/landlady.
4.Ms.Tanya Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would
contend that the Courts below have committed gross illegality, by ordering
eviction, when the respondent/landlady had not made out any case under
Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
Act, 1960, Act 18 of 1960 (herein after called as the Act). Inviting my
attention to the petition filed in RCOP seeking eviction, the learned counsel
for the petitioner would point out to the averments that the
respondent/landlody has stated that the business of the son of the respondent
is growing and the premises, where they are currently carrying on business,
is not suitable and therefore, the premises under the occupation of the
petitioner, along with the other tenants in the building is required for own
use and occupation.
5.In this regard, it is the specific argument of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that despite having come to the Court with a specific case that
the business of the respondent's son is growing, the respondent has not
adduced any evidence in this regard and therefore, having failed to establish
their plea, the Courts ought not to have found that the respondent is entitled
to an order of eviction. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
further submit that the landlady herself did not enter the witness box and it
was only her son, who chose to enter the witness box and give evidence.
3/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
6.Attacking the bonafides of the respondent, the learned counsel for
the petitioner would submit that as against the petitioner, the respondent had
also filed proceedings for fixation of fair rent and sought for Rs.25,000/- as
monthly rent. She would therefore state that the motive of the respondent
was only to extract higher rent from the petitioner and when the petitioner
had come to Court with such oblique motive, there was a clear lack of
bonafides. She would further invite my attention to the findings of the
Appellate Authority and state that the Appellate Authority, though
confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller, has not independently found
that the respondent's claim is bonafide and she would therefore state that the
order of eviction would have to be necessarily set aside on this ground
alone.
7.It is also the further contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the respondent has suppressed and concealed the ownership
of several properties belonging to the son of the respondent. She would also
invite my attention to the admitted position that portions fell vacant in the
premises and P.W.1 himself admitted that he had displayed a Tolet board. It
is therefore the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
petitioner, having not utilized the vacant portions, even pending the eviction
proceedings, would only have to be non-suited, as the bonafide requirement
of the premises cannot be genuine, since if really the petitioner was in dire
need, as pleaded in the RCOP petition, the son of the respondent ought to
have occupied the portions, that fell vacant.
8.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that
merely because P.W.1 had stated that the vacant portions have been let out
on a temporary basis and that the landlady has taken an undertaking that as
and when the premises is required, the newly inducted tenants would vacate,
has no legal sanctity and it should only be viewed as a total lack of
bonafides on the part of the respondent. She would further state that the
respondent has, in fact, sold the property and extensive demolition and
construction activities have already commenced, pursuant to the other
tenants vacating and the petitioner is the only tenant in occupation of the
entire premises and the respondent is attempting to arm twist the petitioner
into vacating and handing over vacant possession.
5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the
petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is also not maintainable as the
respondent is in physical possession of other vacant portions and therefore,
the respondent ought to have invoked Section 10(3)(c) of the Act for
additional accommodation and not Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act for own
use and occupation of non-residential premises. In support of her
arguments, she has relied on the following decisions:
1.Shri Hanuman Mishrimal Oswal and another Vs.
Shri Chadrakant Bhagwantrao Chavan and others, reported
in 2015 SCC Online Bom 4944.
2.Narendra Gulabrao Zade Vs. Shiocharan
Ghashiram Gupta since deceased through LR's
Smt.Radhabai Shivcharan Gupta, reported in 2011 (1) Mh
L.J.
3.Kathan Vs. Scaw Manak Chand Shohaji, reported in
2004 (1) CTC 668.
4.Umedmal B.Jain Vs. Suraj Devi in
CRP(NPD).Nos.1382 of 2021, etc batch, dated 21.09.2023.
10.Referring to the last referred case in CRP(NPD).Nos.1382 of 2021
etc., batch, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the said
revisions pertain to the other tenants in the same property and though
eviction was ordered and confirmed by this Court in these revisions, the
various legal submissions that have been put across by the learned counsel
6/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
for the petitioner in this revision have not been considered in the earlier
batch of CRPs and therefore, persuades me, not to follow the ratio laid
down in the connected revisions.
11.Per contra, Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/landlady would state that the scope of revision under Section 25
of the Act is very limited and the revisional power cannot be exercised by
this Court, as if this Court is hearing an appeal as against the order and
judgment of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. He would
further state that both the Courts have considered the oral and documentary
evidence on record and have rightly ordered eviction and the same does not
warrant interference. He would further state that all the other tenants,
including the tenants who had temporarily occupied the property have also
vacated and therefore, there is no point in contending that the temporary
letting out of the premises on the basis of an undertaking that the said
tenants would vacate the possession is malafide, when admittedly, except
the revision petitioner, no other tenant is in occupation of the entire
premises. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent would also submit
that the To-let boards were displayed only in respect of the upper floors and
7/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
not in respect of the ground floor, for which alone, the premises was sought
for own use and occupation.
12.As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding the maintainability under Section 10(3(a)(iii) of the Act, the
learned counsel for the respondent would state that the premises has been
sought own use and occupation of the son of the respondent and admittedly,
the son of the respondent is not carrying on business in the petition premises
and therefore, the respondent had rightly invoked Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the
Act and there was no necessity to invoke Section 10(3)(c) of the Act as the
respondent and more particularly, the son of the respondent was admittedly
not occupying any portion of the petition premises for non-residential
purposes. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision.
13.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the records,
including the order of the Rent Controller and the judgment of the Appellate
Authority.
8/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
14.The respondent approached the Rent Controller under Section
10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, with a specific case that her son is doing business of
manufacturing coated paper boards and other allied products at a rented
premises, namely No.56, Narayana Mudali Street, Chennai 600 079 and as
the business was growing, the space available in the tenanted premises was
highly insufficient and therefore, the respondent wanted to provide her son
with the entire ground floor of the petition premises. In fact, it was the
specific case of the respondent that the respondent wanted vacant
possession of the entire ground floor, which was under the occupation of the
several other tenants as well and admittedly, eviction petitions have been
filed against all the tenants in the occupation of the various portions in the
ground floor. Excepting the revision petitioner, all the other tenants have
already vacated and in fact, in a batch of revisions in CRP.Nos.1382 of
2021 etc., batch, this Court has confirmed, the concurrent orders of eviction
passed in the connected petitions filed against the other tenants as well.
15.Firstly, dealing with the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the RCOP under Section
10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, I am unable to countenance the said argument for
9/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
the simple reason that in order to seek eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the
Act, for additional accommodation, the landlady or a member of the
landlady's family, for whom the premises is sought for, should already be
carrying on business in a case of requirement for non-residential purposes
which is already in occupation of the landlady or the member of her family,
for whom additional accommodation is sought for. It is not even the case of
the petitioner that the son of the respondent is carrying on business in any
portion of the petition premises. Only in such eventuality, an eviction
petition has to be filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.
16.It is the specific case of the respondent/landlady that her son is
doing business in a rented premises at No.56, Narayana Mudali Street,
Chennai 600079 and therefore, the petition filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii)
of the Act is very well maintainable and in order. The argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard cannot be countenanced and
is consequently rejected.
17.With regard to the motive alleged, namely higher rents, merely
because the respondent had filed a petition for fixation of fair rent, it cannot
10/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
be attributed as an ulterior motive. The respondent is entitling to seek
fixation of fair rent payable for the petition premises. Section 4 of the Act
itself provides for the same. Therefore, when the respondent feels that the
rent being paid by the petitioner is grossly inadequate and far below the
market rates, the respondent is well within her rights to seek fixation of fair
rent under Section 4 of the Act and the mere filing of a petition for fixation
of fair rent, cannot be projected as a malafide action on the part of the
respondent to contend that motive was only to get higher rent and there was
no bonafide in the request for own use and occupation.
18.Regarding the argument of concealment of ownership, Section
10(3)(a)(iii) needs to be seen. Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is extracted
hereunder for easy reference:
“(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 own :
Provided that a person who becomes a landlord after
the commencement of the tenancy by an instrument inter
11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
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.”
19.There is no embargo for a landlord or a member of the family of
the landlord to own more than one property in the same city, town or
village. The only embargo is that the landlord or the member of the
landlord's family, for whom the premises is sought, should not be in
occupation of his/her own premises, residential or non-residential as the
case may be. Therefore, merely because the respondent has not stated the
details of ownership of various properties belonging to her or her son, it is
not fatal to the request for own use and occupation and it does not in any
manner affect the bonafides projected by the respondent herein.
12/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
20.Even the argument that despite getting possession, portions of the
premises have been let out to other third parties and new tenants and
therefore, the petitioner lacks bonafides cannot also be countenanced for the
simple reason that the Courts have found on evidence that P.W.1 has
explained in evidence that the premises that were let out were not in the
ground floor. P.W.1 has also explained in evidence that one shop alone was
let out on a temporary basis as her son could not utilize the vacant portions
and he could put the property to use only after obtaining possession of all
the portions.
21.In fact, even according to the petitioner, the petitioner is the only
occupant of the premises and therefore, as deposed, the respondent has
ensured that the portions that have been let out temporarily have also been
vacated. Therefore, I do not deem it necessary to attribute lack of bonafides
on the part of the respondent, for merely letting out portions on a temporary
basis. In the event of the respondent not occupying the premises, despite
obtaining an order of eviction and consequently, possession of the tenanted
premises, under Section 10(5) of the Act. The tenant is always entitled to
seek for re-induction into the tenanted premises. Therefore, there are
13/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
adequate safeguards available in the Act to protect the interest of the tenant,
in the event of the respondent not putting the property to use, for which the
landlord approached the Court and also obtained possession from the tenant.
22.As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the Appellate Authority has not even found the requirement of the
respondent to be bonafide, no doubt, the Appellate Authority has not set out
in so many words that the requirement of the respondent is bonafide, but
however, the Appellate Authority has discussed the contentions taken by the
petitioner in appeal, attacking the bonafides of the respondent and has also
affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller has also
dealt in great detail, the various contentions raised by the petitioner and
ultimately, found that the requirement of the respondent was bonafide.
Therefore, when the findings of the Rent Controller have been upheld by the
Appellate Authority, the mere fact that the Appellate Authority has not
independently found the requirement of the landlord to be bonafide has not
be fatal.
14/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
23.As regards the other argument that the landlady did not enter the
witness box, I do not see how this circumstance can be put against the
landlady. In fact, it was the specific case of the landlady that the premises
was required for the landlady's son, who was doing business. The said son
has been examined as P.W.1. Therefore, when the premises has been sought
for the non-residential use of a member of the family and such member of
the family has been examined, I do not see how the non-examination of the
landlady is suicidal or fatal, as contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
24.In fact, the bonafides of the respondent is made out from the fact
that the requirement, as set out in the petition, was in respect of not only the
shop occupied by the petitioner, but also all other tenants in the ground
floor and against all the tenants, separate eviction petitions were instituted
and all the other tenants have also suffered concurrent orders of eviction and
this Court, by order dated 21.09.2023 in CRP.(NPD).No.1382 of 2021 etc.,
batch has also confirmed the orders of eviction by dismissing the revision
petitions. In fact, I find from the said order that most of the contentions
raised in the present revision petition have also been argued in the
connected revision petitions and did not find favour with this Court.
15/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
25.Further, under Section 25, the power of superintendence available
to this Court is circumscribed and as long as the Rent Controller and the
Appellate Authority have adverted their minds to the available oral and
documentary evidence and have come to concurrent findings and there
being no perversity or illegality in such findings, this Court is not entitled to
interfere under Section 25 of the Act.
26.Even otherwise, in view of the powers under section 25 being
supervisory in nature, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. The
Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently
assessed the oral and documentary evidence in a proper perspective and I do
not find any perversity or illegality in the said findings. In fact, it is settled
law that, on facts, even if the revisional Court is able to come to a different
conclusion, as long as the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below is
legally permissible, then this Court exercising power under Section 25 of
the Act, should not interfere with concurrent findings. In the light of the
above, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the
Appellate Authority is confirmed. There is no merit in the revision.
16/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
27.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner
shall vacate and hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises by
31.01.2026. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
17.10.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
To
1.The VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The X Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
17/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
P.B. BALAJI,J.
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
17.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:16:12 pm )
