IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 28.06.2007 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice M.CHOCKALINGAM CRP.NPD.No.1502 of 2007 and M.P.No. 1 of 2007 P.Ganesan ...Petitioner -vs- P.R.Lakshmanan ...Respondent Civil Revision Petition against the order and decretal order dated 2.3.2007 made in R.C.A.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Ranipet confirming the order and decretal order dated 14.10.2003 made in RCOP.No. 6 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Sholinghur, Vellore District. For petitioner : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar For Respondent : Mr.G.Jeremiah ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been brought forth by the tenant aggrieved over the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ranipet made in RCA.No. 6 of 2004 , whereby, the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller, Sholinghur made in RCOP.No.6 of 1999 was affirmed.
2. The respondent filed the said RCOP. No.6 of 1999 for eviction on two grounds. Firstly, the shop premises occupied by the tenant was required for his personal use and occupation and secondly it was required for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The case of the respondent/ landlord was that he has purchased the property, which consists of number of shop premises and out of those, one shop was being occupied by the revision petitioner/ tenant on monthly rental basis and the landlord has been carrying on business in plywood and glass articles in a rented premises, that there is a dispute between himself and the owner of the place, where he is carrying on business. Under the circumstances, he has to shift his business to his own property. Thus the premises was required for his own use and occupation. Further the present building has got to be demolished and reconstructed. It is true that the respondent/ landlord was having Kalyana Mandapam from 1993 onwards. But that kalyana mandapam cannot be used for carrying on his business and except that, he had no other property. Hence, eviction has to be ordered.
3. This application was resisted to by the petitioner/ tenant on different grounds that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the application since the Tamilnadu Buildings and Lease Control Act has no application to Sholinghur, that there was no bona fide on the part of the landlord for seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, that in the eviction application both the grounds viz., for personal use and occupation and for demolition and reconstruction, are inconsistent with each other and lastly he had neither sufficient means nor the building sought to be demolished was old. Hence, the petition was to be dismissed.
4. The Rent Controller, on enquiry, found that the eviction was to be ordered and accordingly ordered. Aggrieved, the tenant, took it on appeal in RCA.No.6 of 2004. But the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved tenant has brought forth this Civil Revision Petition.
5. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner/ tenant, the learned counsel would submit that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, that even in the Rent Control Act, it has been made clear that it is applicable to Corporation and Municipalities and the said Act came to be enacted in the year 1960. But the District and Municipalities Act was extended to three places including Sholinghur only on 14.6.2004 and thus, the provisions of Rent Control Act cannot be made applicable at all. It is an admitted case that the landlord is carrying on his business in a place where he claimed that the super structure belonged to him, and therefore, there was no need for him to evict the tenant and occupy the present place. Added further, both the grounds, viz., personal use and occupation and also demolition and reconstruction cannot exist together. In so far as the ground of demolition and reconstruction is concerned, the building is not proved to be old and it is not shown that sufficient means are available for raising construction and it is nothing but the landlord’s intention to evict the tenant. Without considering this aspect legally and factually, both the authorities below have ordered eviction. Hence, the orders of lower court are liable to be set aside.
6. Contrary to the above, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord that there is no quarrel that the provisions of the Act could be applied to the Corporation and Municipalities and there was a Government Order passed in the year 1946 in G.O.Ms.No.911 Development on 3rd March 1947, wherein it has been made clear that Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1946 are extended to Town Panchayat also and in that Government order, it was made clear that the expression of Town Panchayat wherever it occurs, the expression Third Grade Municipalities should be substituted. Thus the Act had been made applicable to Sholinghur, a Town Panchayat and from the time onwards it has been so applied till this date and it is not the District Municipalities Act which was extended to Third grade Municipalities including the Sholinghur on 14.6.2004. Even though this Act has been in operation for the past 5 or 6 decades, so far as Third Grade Municipalities is concerned, the said Act was extended so from the time of the passing of the Government Order in 2004. Even from the passing of the new Act, 1960, it has been continuously in force and under the circumstances, the contention was negatived by the authorities below and it is an admitted fact that he is carrying on his business in plywood and glass in a rental premises by paying rent and under the circumstances, he required the place for raising new construction and occupying the same. Further it is also an admitted fact that the respondent landlord owned a Kalyana Mandapam which cannot be put in use to carry on his business and that the landlord is having no other property or premises which was never rebutted by the opposite party. Under the circumstances, he has to evict the tenant from the property and also demolish the same for construction for his occupation. For the ground of demolition and reconstruction, the landlord examined a Surveyor, who has spoken about the oldness and age of the building. Under the circumstances, the authorities below have considered the aspect of the matter and accordingly, ordered eviction, which has got to be sustained.
7. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order of eviction passed by the authorities below has got to be sustained. It is not in controversy that the respondent has been making payment of rental to the landlord and thus the landlord – tenant relationship is an admitted position. According to the learned counsel for the tenant/ revision petitioner, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction since the Act was applicable only to corporations, cities and also to District Municipalities and Municipal Town. It was also contended that the District Municipalities Act was extended to three places in 2004 including Sholinghur. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that it was brought to the notice of the authorities below that an Government order was passed in the year 1946, wherein it was clearly mentioned that Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was extended to town panchayats and wherever it occurred as Town Panchayat under the Municipalities Act, the word Third Grade Municipalities must be substituted. It is not in controversy that even from the passing of the Act, 1960, the G.O. has been followed and it has been continued till the filing of RCOP, all along the period for the past 50 years. Hence, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent was rightly rejected by the authorities below. In such circumstances, the contention that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction, has got to be discountenanced.
8. The second contention that the landlord lacked bonafide while seeking eviction on the ground of immediate demolition and reconstruction has got to be rejected. It is an admitted position that the landlord was occupying the premises on rental basis for carrying on his business and though he has owned Kalyana Mandapam, it is needless to say that the said property cannot be used to carry on the business. Under the circumstances, his desirous is to have the building in question for his own use and at the same time, he has also expressed that the building has got to be demolished for the purpose of his own use and occupation. When there is a real need shown by the landlord for his use and occupation of the premises, being occupied by the tenant, which requires demolition and reconstruction for the occupation by the landlord, there cannot be any impediment in granting eviction. In a given case, so far as bona fide of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction is concerned, he has to prove the necessary parameters. Firstly, the fact that the building was old was proved by examining a Surveyor. Apart from this, whether he is having sufficient means was not a factor in question. Further, he has also applied for the approval of the plan for making a new construction and thus, it is proved that he required the premises for the purpose of reconstruction and not for letting out to anybody, but for his own occupation. Under such circumstances, both the authorities below have gone into these questions and taken a correct decision which, in the opinion of this Court, does not require any interference and the eviction order passed by the authorities below, is sustained.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner/ tenant should be given sufficient time to find out a suitable accommodation to shift his business and hence, he should be given three years time. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that anticipating the proceedings for the past eight years, it is true that a reasonable time has got to be given, and three years period will be a too long one.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the considered opinion that reasonable time in the instant case would be one year. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, for a non residential premises, where the revision petitioner is carrying on his business, the Court feels that it is a fit case where 18 months time would be
M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.
bg
a reasonable period for vacating and handing over possession. Therefore, the tenant is directed to file an undertaking affidavit to make the arrears of rental and also to continue to pay the rent till the time of vacating and handing over possession. The petitioner undertakes to file the said affidavit within a period of two weeks here from.
11. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.
28.06.2007
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
bg
To
1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Ranipet
2. The Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Sholinghur, Vellore District.
CRP.NPD.No.1502 of 2007