John Louis vs G. Ramachandran

N. Arumugham, J.—An attempt to get a dissenting view from the concurrent findings given by two authorities under the Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, made in R.C.O.P. No. 47 of 1983 dated 4.8.1986 and R.C.A. No. 36 of 1987 dated 31.10.1988 has

been made in this revision alleging that both the said orders virtually failed to identify that the requirement of the rental premises bearing door

number 22, Web Church Road for own use and occupation of the landlord is not bona fide.

It is the common case of both the parties that the revision petitioner was a tenant in the demised property above referred, which is a residential

one on a monthly rental of Rs. 40. Since the landlord required the same for his own occupation for the reason that he owns no other building either

on his own accord or otherwise having the full interest at his command, he resorted to Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and

Rent Control) Act in R.C.O.P. No. 47 of 1983. After hot contest made by and on behalf of the revision petitioner/tenant very much disputing the

bona fide requirement of the landlord, the learned Rent Controller accepted the claim of the landlord and ordered eviction, which was confirmed

by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 36 of 1987 as above referred. Assailing these consensus by both the courts below,

the present attempt is made in this revision to set aside the same.

Normally, this Court while sitting over the jurisdiction u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act will not interfere with

the concurrent judgments held by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority unless they had emerged out of gross violation of law or

involving substantial questions to be decided. But, for probing of substantial legality, either on factual aspects or other contingencies or extraneous

matters, this Court may not intervene ordinarily. However, the attempt made by Mr. Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

revision petitioner though enters into the arena of factual aspects, failed to convince me with any legal aspects to have a dissenting view with the

identification of bona fide nature of the claim of the landlord concurrently held by both courts below. To substantiate his contention, learned

Counsel would point out the address given by the landlord itself in Ex. A-1 sale deed executed much anterior to the filing of the petition is the nexus

and the pleadings made in the petition not in extenso but very brief, would make the court of law to arrive at the mala fide claim of the landlord,

which I am totally unable to persuade myself to accept. The procedure laid down for disposing a lis between two parties, namely, the tenant and

the landlord, is a special one but however must be essentially followed in a summary way and therefore it is not desirable for any court to render

justice or mould the relief on the mere basis of preponderance of probabilities or consistent version or the necessary pleas containing all the details.

Enough for the court exercising jurisdiction under this Act to identify the concept of ''bona fide'' in the claim made on behalf of the landlord for any

relief claimed u/s 10. If it is so done, the relief of eviction sought for can safely be granted to the person who seeks it, if not, the authority can reject

it.

Keeping the ratio enunciated and settled above referred by the courts of law in this land in view and applying the same to the facts of this case, I

am able to identify that the oral claim of the landlord respondent herein, is quite consistent with the pleadings made in the petition in all substratum,

as was clearly observed by both courts below. It has been clearly established that the landlord while claiming the relief u/s 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act

does not own any other property over which, he is having absolute right and command for his own occupation but however, the property

mentioned partly belongs to his wife and partly to his father. If such fractional ownership is projected, I am at every difficulty to construe the same

as being under the complete dominion of the landlord so as to attract the concept of ownership of any residential or non-residential building. The

elaborate and detailed discussion held by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority but however

concurrently, with regard to the bona fide nature of the requirement of the landlord cannot be assailed or suspected on any of the grounds of

extraneous matter like a variance in the pleadings with regard to the residence of the petitioner. Assuming that there are contradictions or omissions

in the pleadings with minor materials, in my respectful view, may not tilt the balance in favour of the tenant while he admits that the rental premises

belongs to the respondent but however pleading that the respondent/landlord''s plea with regard to his residence is prevaricating between the

pleadings made in the petition and in the document. These matters are even assuming, according to me, are clearly extraneous based on mere

surmises and conjectures.

I have heard Mr. Ashok Menon, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord, who would confine his arguments to the well settled

principle of law enunciated by this Court as well as the Apex Court in very many number of cases of this nature and the procedure to be followed

in identifying the bona fide requirement of the landlord of any rental premises for his own use. He took me through the evidence as well as the

pleadings. In short, his attempt was to support the impugned findings given by both courts below. Besides, the same are in his favour. After having

thus considered the whole gamut of the recorded case on evidence and the pleadings, in the context of the well settled judicial view, I do not come

across any legal infirmity or impropriety or erroneous conclusion arrived at by both authorities below in passing the order of eviction and directing

the revision petitioner to put the landlord in possession of the rental premises. No other point has been projected before me except the same above

referred to.

In the result, the revision fails and accordingly it stands dismissed. Consequently, the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller in

R.C.O.P. No. 47 of 1983 and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 36 of 1987 is hereby confirmed. As requested

and consented to by the Bar for respective parties, time to vacate is granted by three months. The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit of

undertaking that he will vacate and deliver vacant possession of the rental premises to the landlord/respondent within a period of three months from

today, within a week from today. However, under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.