AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan, O.C.J.
On two grounds eviction was sought against the revision petitioners-(l) owner''s occupation u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1960; and (2) sub-Letting. As far as the trial court viz., the Rent Control Court was concerned, it dismissed the application
for eviction holding against the landlord, the respondent in the revision petition. However, the appellate Court rendered a finding that the plea of
sub-letting had not been proved, and therefore, it proceeded to consider only the ground relating to owner''s occupation. For reasons contained in
the order to which I will make immediate reference, it upheld the plea of owner''s occupation and directed the eviction. Thus the revision. In this
revision, two points are raised before me by Mr. V.S. Subramanyam, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners: (1) That this is a case in which
the firm is sought to be evicted. Therefore, order 30 of the CPC does not apply as laid down in Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and
Others Vs. Shikarchand, to the parties who have been impleaded: and (2) Though on a consideration of the requirements of bonafides the Rent
Controller was of the view that the application lacked bona fides, that aspect of the matter has not been gone into at all by the appellate authority
since he chose to rely on M. Abdul Rahman Vs. S. Sadasivam 1984 (I) MLJ 410. = 97 L.W. 516. That ruling is no longer good law in view of
Hameedia Hardware Stores, represented by its partner S. Peer Mohammed Vs. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, Therefore, proceeding on that basis, it is
argued that originally the father of the landlord refused to accept the rent till an application in this regard was made. Then again the son made an
application. That was dismissed. Thereafter, partition was effected between father and son allotting this property in favour of the son. The father
also having died, a portion of this property has come to vest in the son, which would be enough for his business. Therefore, these are the factors
which weighed with the Rent Controller to hold that there was lack of bonafides. All these have not been adverted to by the appellate court.
As far as the first point is concerned, no doubt it is true that in Chhotelal Pyarelal, The Partnership Firm and Others Vs. Shikarchand, it has been
categorically laid down that ""firm"" is no more than a compendious name for all the partners and as it cannot be sued under the Rent Control Act,
because order XXX of the C.P.C. does not apply to rent control proceedings. But here the point that is raised requires to be carefully considered.
This was never put forward in the main. Nor again was it urged during the trial even as a plea of law. And equally again, before the appellate court
this was never urged. Therefore, I see absolutely no justification to allow this plea to defeat the rights of the landlord at this belated stage of revision
except that it has been taken in the grounds.
As regards bona fides, I do not agree with the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that it has not been considered. As a matter of fact, the
appellate court renders a finding, on a consideration of the various documents as follows:
The Learned Counsel for the tenant repeatedly urged that the public authorities like the Sales Tax Officer and the Officers in Steel Authorities of
India would receive any amount paid or deposited with him and issue receipts and that such receipts cannot be relied upon for concluding that the
landlord is really carrying on business. It is difficult to accept this plea if the landlord is not really carrying on business, his application for eviction of
the tenant under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act 18 of 1960 would be opposed on the ground that he is not really carrying on any business. When this
landlord has produced documents like certificate of registration and bills for having some stainless steel utensils, it is commented that these are all
only documents which at the best would show that be has made preparations for carrying on business and that be is not actually carrying on
business. Ex.P.17 series show that he had actually sold utensils to third parties. The Learned counsel for the appellant-tenant rightly pointed out
that the fact of his client actually carrying on business in a rented building cannot at all be doubted or disputed
After so rendering a finding the entire paragraph 11 of the Judgment fully devotes as to the position in which the landlord is placed and ultimately
concludes:
It is apparent that when the conditions of section 10(3)(a)(iii) are satisfied, the relief of eviction sought for by the landlord cannot be denied even
though it may cause inconvenience to the tenants. The finding of the Learned Rent Controller about this requirement of the landlord being not bona
fide, is not correct and it cannot be allowed to stand.
Therefore, we have to bear in mind not only the bona fides, but also the relevant inconvenience which may be caused by reason of this order of
eviction. Thus I find that he had applied the law correctly, though he had chosen to rely on, as the law as it stood, M. Abdul Rahman Vs. S.
Sadasivam (1984 (I) MLJ 410). = 97 L.W. 516. Thus on facts I find that this is a clear case in which the bona fide requirement of the landlord has
been made out, as found by the appellate authority.
The revision petition carries no merits and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Time to vacate till 20th of December, 1989. The Commissioner''s
remuneration is fixed at Rs.1,000/- which shall be paid by the respondent.