M. Mani vs D. Ramalingam

Maheswaran, J.—The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord applied to the Rent Controller under S. 10(3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the eviction of the revision petitioner who was a tenant in

respect of a portion in the ground floor in premises No. 3 Oil monger St. Triplicane, Madras 5, on a monthly rent of Rs. 25, on the ground that he

required that portion of the premises in question for the occupation of his undivided brother. The tenant-revision petitioner raised mainly two

contentions: (1) that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and (2) that the petition filed by respondent-landlord under S. 10 (3) (c) of the

Act is not maintainable.

The Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide, and that the landlord was correct in applying under S. 10 (3) (a) (i)

of the Act and accordingly allowed the petition of the landlord ordering eviction of the petitioner. The appellate court confirmed the order of the

Rent Controller.

The two points now raised are the same as those raised before the courts below. In regard to the first point, viz., that the requirement is not

bona fide, both the courts below have clearly held that the requirement is bona fide. It is pointed out that there was strained relationship between

the landlord and his brother, Balasubramanian, that he wanted to be separate in food and residence, that on that account, be even got transferred

to Kancheepuram and that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide since his brother has to be separately accommodated in the premises. On

this aspect, the petitioner has nothing to say, but, however, he would contend that an earlier petition filed by the landlord for eviction was dismissed

and therefore the landlord has filed this petition before the court as though he requires the premises for the occupation of his brother, which is not a

bona fide requirement. It is admitted by the tenant-revision petitioner himself that the earlier petition was filed in the year 1979 and after that in the

year 1982 the landlord has filed this present petition. Therefore, it is clear that the earlier petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default has

nothing to do with the present application requiring the premises for the occupation of the landlord''s brother.

The only point that now remains for consideration is whether the respondent-landlord ought to have applied under S. 10(3)(c) of the Act and

whether his application under S. 10 (3)(f) (i) of the Act is not maintainable. A perusal of the eviction petition shows that the petition premises

belongs to the respondent herein, his mother and his brother and that after the death of the respondent''s father in 1965, the respondent has been

looking after the family as the eldest male member and Kartha of the family. It is in that capacity, the respondent landlord seeks eviction of the

tenant revision petitioner on the ground that he requires the premises for the occupation of his undivided brother.

Mr. V. Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited my attention to S. 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act, and contended that the

landlord can apply under that section only if the landlord requires that residential building for his own occupation or for the occupation of any

member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying a residential building of his own and that as his brother now owns

residence along with his brother, the landlord is precluded from applying under S. 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner to

support his argument points out to S. 10 (3) (c) of the Act, which says that a landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether

residential or non-residential, may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part

of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purpose of a

business which he is carrying on as the case may be, and contends that the respondent ought to have filed the petition under that Section.

The expression ''is not occupying a residential building of his own'' came to be considered in S.S. Purushotham Chettiar Vs. S. Parasumal

Sowcar, That was a case where the tenant contended that the landlord had aright of residence in the premises in which he was residing on the date

when the application for eviction was filed, that the premises was landlord''s own premises by reason of the right of residence and therefore the

petition filed by the landlord under S. 10(3) (a) (i) of the Act 18 of 1960 was not maintainable. Ramprasada Rao, J. (as he then was) held that

where a landlord is permissively in occupation of a residential building by reason of a right of residence obtained by him in a civil proceeding as

between himself and the other members of his family, such a right is not an equation of ownership as is understood in jurisprudence. Learned Judge

further pointed out that ownership is a peculiar concept which high lights on the individuality of the person who owns it and his exclusive right to

deal with it under the eye of law.

Following the above decision, Nainar-Sundaram, J. also in K.S. Shantilal v. E. Penny Biber 1980 T.L.N.J. 286 held that the ownership

contemplated under the provisions of S. 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act, must be exclusive and it cannot be equated to joint ownership, which will leave the

matter nebulous. In the present case, the premises required for the occupation of the landlord''s brother is an ancestral house in which the

respondent landlord and his brother have undoubtedly a right of residence.

From a reading of the above decisions, it is manifest that the expression ''is not occupying a residential building of his own'' should be limited to

the situation where the landlord is not occupying a residential building of which he is the sole owner thereof. Viewed in this angle, the petition by the

landlord under S. 10(3) (a) (i) of the Act is perfectly maintainable. The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no

order as to costs. Three months time is granted for vacating the premises on the petitioner''s filing an undertaking.