IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :06.08.2010
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice G.RAJASURIA
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1150 of 2006
V.Duraisingam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.S.K.Nataraja Chettiar
2.Baskaran ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2005 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.926 to 2002 confirming the dismissal order dated 21.12.2001 passed by the X Judge, Small Causes Court, in RCOP No.1184 of 1998.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Seshadri
For Respondents : Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra
O R D E R
Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2005 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.926 to 2002 confirming the dismissal order dated 21.12.2001 passed by the X Judge, Small Causes Court, in RCOP No.1184 of 1998, this civil revision petition is filed by the landlord.
2. Niggard and bereft of unnecessary details, the necessary and germane facts for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
(i) The respondent, being the landlord, filed the R.C.O.P.No.1184 of 1998 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground of ‘demolition and reconstruction’ of the building concerned. The matter was contested by the respondents/tenants herein.
(ii) Before the Rent Controller on the side of the revision petitioner/landlord, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 along with one Ajis Mohideen-the Engineer as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. On the side of the respondents/tenants, the first respondent herein examined himself as R.W.1 along with one Chellaiah Saradhi-the Engineer as P.W.2 and the second respondent herein as R.W.3 and marked Ex.R1.
(ii) Ultimately, the Rent Controller dismissed the RCOP.
(iii) As against the said order, the appeal RCA.No.926 of 2002 was filed by the landlord for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate authority, confirming the order of dismissal passed by the Rent Controller.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of the Courts below, this revision has been filed by the landlord setting out various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:
(i) The Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that the landlord requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction of the front portion of his building wherein the demised premises are situated.
(ii) In the building, at the front portion, there are row of five shops and the landlord is already in possession of two of the shops and in the remaining three shops, the tenant, Nataraja Chettiar is in occupation of two shops and the tenant Baskaran is in possession of one shop. The claim of the landlord is genuine and his bona fides are beyond doubt.
(iii) The landlord applied for approval, but it was returned because the premises was under the occupation of the tenants and to that effect the said plan was marked as Ex.P1.
(iv) At any time the landlord would be able to obtain permission from the authority concerned and file it before taking delivery as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2002)3 M.L.J.130(S.C.) – HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL VS. S.M.ISPAHANI AND ANOTHER.
(v) The Courts below fell into error in doubting the bona fides. The findings of the Courts below that the building is not in dilapidated condition requiring demolition was unsustainable.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord prays for setting aside the orders of the Courts below and for allowing the RCOP.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner, would advance his arguments, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:
(i) There is nothing wrong in the orders passed by the Courts below.
(ii) The demised premises concerned does not require any demolition and reconstruction and the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. The points for consideration are as under:
(i) Whether the landlord with bona fide intention filed the RCOP seeking eviction on the ground of ‘demolition and reconstruction’ and whether the Courts below adhering to the ingredients of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act dealt with the matter?
(ii) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below.
7. At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decisions which arise under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act:
(i) 1998 MADRAS LAW JOURNAL (SUPP) 18 RAM NARAIN ARORA V. ASHA RANI AND OTHERS, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
“8. . . . . . Therefore, he submitted relying on the decisions in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 344 and Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, (1988)3 S.C.C.131, that the view taken by the High Court must be upheld.
9. Sec.14(1)(e) of the Act read as follows:
“14(1)(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.'(Italics supplied)
10. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has reasonably suitable accommodation, then necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances, further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defeat the claim of the landlord.”
(ii) 1995(II) CTC 452 SANKARANARAYANAN V. PALANISWAMI, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
“8. . . . . Section 10(3)(a)(iii) deals with the conditions for obtaining possession of a non-residential building.
The conditions required are:
a) The building should be non-residential in character.
b) The landlord should be carrying on business on the date of his applying for eviction.
c) He should not be occupying any other non-residential building belonging to him for the purpose of his business; and
d) The landlord’s claim is bona fide for his business needs and not based on oblique motives like trying to obtain more rent or to harass the tenant.”
As such, a mere poring over and perusal of the above excerpts, including the whole judgments, would highlight and spotlight the fact that the bona fides have to be objectively considered by the Courts below and mere age of the building alone is not the criterian.
8. The financial wherewithal of the landlord should be understood in the present day context, as any financial institution would be willing to lend money to raise commercial building etc.
9. As such, keeping in mind the above dictum, if the orders of the Courts below are scrutinised, it is crystal clear that they did not adhere to the above said decisions in dealing with the matter and rendering the judgment.
10. Here, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord would appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly point out that the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and detailed and delineated, narrated and portrayed the real facts. In addition to that, P.W.2-the landlord’s Engineer was examined and he spoke with reference to his report Ex.P3, which would clearly exemplify and demonstrate, display and portray that the building requires demolition and reconstruction also.
11. At this juncture, I would like to point out that a prudent landlord is always entitled to get his old building erased and new structure raised in that place for the purpose of augmenting his income and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord that he should get himself satisfied with the old building and the meagre rent, which he is deriving out of it. In such a case, the Courts below failed in applying the correct proposition of law and arriving at a just conclusion.
12. In fact, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord would submit that even the Engineer-P.W.2 would point out that the building developed cracks.
13. The learned counsel for the tenants would submit that the evidence of R.W.2-the Engineer was not to the effect that the demised premises requires immediate demolition, but mere repairs would be sufficient.
14. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the building need not be in such a dilapidated condition of falling down etc. The march of law relating to demolition and reconstruction is to the effect that the nature of the building need not be that much in a dilapidated condition, warranting immediate demolition. It is sufficient if the landlord sincerely wants his old building to be demolished for the purpose of augmenting his income. The landlord also in the RCOP as well as in his deposition would highlight the said fact, which could not be doubted. As such, I am of the considered view that the orders of the Courts below should be set aside allowing this revision and consequently, allowing the RCOP. Accordingly, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and this revision is allowed.
15. However, the learned counsel for the tenant would make an extempore submission that if the tenants are evicted all of a sudden, holus-bolus, they would find it difficult to find an alternative accommodation and as such, he prays for two years’ time to vacate the premises.
16. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord would agree for the same.
17. As such, two years’ time is granted from this date for vacating the premises and handing over possession of the same to the revision petitioner/landlord subject to payment of agreed rent promptly without any default. Even if there is one default in payment of rent, the revision petitioner/landlord is at liberty to enforce the order. The respondents/tenants shall file an affidavit to that effect within 15 day from this date.
The civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Msk 06.08.2010 To Index:Yes Internet:Yes G.RAJASURIA,J. msk C.R.P.(NPD) No.1150 of 2006 06.08.2010