Munuswamy vs S.S. Nathan

N. Arumugham, J.—The concurrent finding given by both courts below, namely the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate

Authority, in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1990 dated 23.8.1990 confirming the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 42 of 1988 dated 12.12.1989,

is canvassed in this revision by the revision petitioner, who is the landlord.

The facts which led to this revision are extracted as follows:

The respondent is the tenant in the rental premises bearing door number 54, Kongu Nagar 4th Street, Thiruppur in Coimbatore District on a

monthly rental of Rs. 350 payable every month to the revision petitioner herein. Since the landlord is living in his house which is situated in Muthu

Nagar with his family as well as his married son, his wife, children and widowed daughter and her children, in all, totalling twelve, the present

residence is not adequate enough for all of them to have a minimum accommodation even and that therefore, the landlord/revision petitioner

requires the rental premises for the occupation of his son. Adding thereto, it was also alleged that the tenant/respondent having taken the rental

premises for his residence is however using the same for a different purpose of conducting a school in Hindu language by putting a name board in

front of it, which provides the breach of agreement. Therefore, on the above two grounds provided under Sections 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of

the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, eviction was sought for by filing the Rent Control Petition before the Rent Controller. On

a careful consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence recorded, learned Rent Controller has not accepted the claim of the petitioner

as bona fide and there fore, has rejected the said two grounds and accordingly declined to pass the order of eviction. In the appeal preferred by

the aggrieved landlord, on a total reappraisal of the entire materials placed before the court and the perusal of the evidence and records, the Rent

Control Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved at this, the

landlord has chosen this Court to vindicate his remedy u/s 25 of the Buildings Act, challenging its legality, propriety and correctness.

When the case is listed today for final disposal learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.V. Krishnan is ready and he represented that the

respondent though served with the notice of this revision long back has not entered his appearance either by himself or through his counsel and

accordingly, he has kept off his hands from this Court. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above and the notice of this revision had

been duly served upon the respondent long back, I heard the revision on merits and the arguments submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner by

the Bar.

While assailing the concurrent judgments by both courts below, Mr. M.V. Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner drew

my attention to the inappropriate observations made by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in saying that the non-examination of

the married son of the landlord to exhibit his intention to occupy the present house by way of separate living does not depict the bona fides in the

claim of the petitioner and contended that the observations made by the learned Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority

with regard to the same and other conclusions are not based on the correct appreciation of the materials placed before it and that therefore, the

concurrent conclusions arrived at by them are totally erroneous and lack legal sanctity. While projecting the said contention, learned Counsel

would also further state, as was laid down in very many number of cases by this Court, that in ascertaining the bona fide requirement of a landlord

of the rental premises for the occupation of his family members, it is not the business of the competent authority under the Act to ascertain the view

of every member of the landlord''s family but however to confine its job only in identifying the bona fide nature of the claim on his own evidence

and not otherwise. If this aspect is taken into consideration and accepted, then, I have no difficulty to say that the approach adopted by both

courts below is not on par with the law and on a correct perspective. I may observe that there is every force in the arguments advanced on behalf

of the revision petitioner.

This Court on more than one occasion previously, has held, that in exercising its power to identify the bona fide nature of the landlord''s claim in

requiring the rental premises for the occupation of his family members, it is out of point for the competent authority to have the direct ascertainment

of the intention of such members, as to whether they want to go and live in the suit property or not and enough for it to see whether the claim of the

landlord is found to be bona fide and convincing to the court. Following the said decisions as referred to in both courts below to the facts of the

case on hand and having meticulously perused the evidence of the petitioner/landlord, if I may say so, the revision petitioner/landlord had

convincingly and reasonably established the bona fide nature of his claim in requiring the rental premises for the occupation of his family members.

What is more important to note from the adduced evidence is that the claim of the landlord that he is living with 12 members in his family is not

denied by the tenant and in particular, the landlord''s claim in that regard remains uncontroverted. What the tenant has said in his evidence is that he

feigns knowledge of the members of the family of the landlord in number and in what capacity they are living with the petitioner in his house at

Muthu Nagar. That apart, the oral claim of P.W.1, the petitioner is quite consistent with his pleadings made in the petition and above all, his claim

seems to be natural, cogent and convincing and clearly establishes his requirement as bona fide. It is also noticed that when a man with his big

family consisting of his widowed daughter and her children, his married son with his family and children are living together under one roof, it is for

that man, and that man alone is the competent person, to say the sufficiency or adequacy of the accommodation for all the members of his family

and certainly not the intention of each and every member of that family. To elucidate or illustrate the above aspect further, one member of that big

family or any of the children may not like to go separate and live in a secluded place, that does not mean, that the requirement of the landlord,

namely, the head of the family, is deemed to be not bona fide but on the contrary, it goes to prove the converse. Under such circumstances in a

given case what the competent authority is needed to do is to identify the bona fide nature of the claim in his requirement with reference to the

adequacy of the availability of accommodation and the accommodation sought for, the circumstances under which the accommodation was sought,

the nature of the building and other attendant circumstances. If on getting all the said factual aspects by means of evidence or otherwise, if the

Controller or the Appellate Authority is satisfied in identifying the bonafide nature of the requirement of the landlord, then the relief can be moulded

as provided by the law. Only in such cases and under such circumstances if the court does not get satisfied with regard to the bona fide nature then

it may decline to mould that relief, otherwise, the eviction sought for has to be granted. Keeping the said ratio in mind in the light of the facts of the

instant case, after having gone through all the aspects meticulously, I am of the firm view that the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner, the

pleadings, the notice and the reply coupled with the claim of the respondent, clearly demonstrate the fact that the petitioner namely, the revision

petitioner had clearly established the bona fide nature of his requirement of the rental premises for the occupation of his family. In this regard, I

have no hesitation to hold that both courts below had clearly and totally overlooked the consideration of the matter to the above referred extent

and wrongly proceeded to base their conclusion on the non-examination of the married son of the landlord, which is totally unnecessary in my

concept. Accordingly, I find the concurrent findings of both courts below are totally erroneous and as such, they cannot be allowed to be sustained

in law. Therefore, they are liable to be interfered with. For the reason of identifying error in the findings concurrently given by both courts below,

this revision has to be allowed.

In the result, the revision succeeds and stands allowed. The conclusion and findings given by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in

R.C.A. No. 2 of 1990, dated 23.8.1990 and that of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 42 of 1998 dated 12.12.1989 are set aside.

Consequently the eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 42 of 1988 is allowed, and eviction of the respondent is hereby

ordered. Accordingly, the respondent herein is directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises and put the petitioner herein in

possession of the same within a period of two months from today without any resort to drag the proceedings any more in any court of law.

However, there will be no order as to costs under the circumstances.