S. Raman vs T. Pakirisamy Pathar

David Annoussamy, J.—This is a revision petition by the tenant. The landlord purchased a tiled house, which was occupied by three tenants,

two occupying the two moieties of the house and the third one revision petitioner herein occupying a portion of the pial wherein he has installed a

petty grocery shop, about 15 years prior to the institution of the proceedings in the year 1983. Soon after the purchase by the present landlord, he

instituted eviction proceedings against all the tenants. The other two tenants have vacated the house. The present tenant revision petitioner herein

contended that the petition for eviction was not maintainable, since the petition was for owner''s occupation for residential purposes whereas the

building was a non-residential one both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority stated that for ascertaining the character of a building

whether it is a residential or a non-residential one, one has to take into account the totality of the structure and come to the conclusion which is just

and proper under the circumstances. Having set out that principle the authorities below have found that the building occupied by the tenant

consisted of a small portion of the pial and that taking into account its size and location it cannot be declared as having acquired independently the

character of a non-residential building while the other portions of the structure remained residential. Aggrieved by the abovesaid decisions, the

tenant has preferred the present revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner placed before me, two decisions, one of a Bench of this Court in In Re: A.S. Vijayaraghavalu

Chetty, and another decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shaji v. Addl. Dist. Session Allahabad and Ors. (1977) 2 S.C.C. 266. The above

two decisions are only to the effect that once a portion of a structure has been let out separately it would be a building within the meaning of the

Rent Control Act. There is no quarrel regarding that proposition, but that is of no use to decide the point whether a building is or is pot a residential

one. In fact, both the authorities have accepted that the premises let out to the tenant was a building and it is only for that reason that they have

accepted having jurisdiction to deal with this matter under the Rent Control Act.

In order to ascertain whether the building is a residential or a non-residential one, one will have to look at the structure of the building and also

the use to which it was put. If the building is part of a larger structure, one has necessarily to take also into account the nature of the entirety of the

structure, the location of the specific portion of the building in that structure, the size of that portion and all other attendant circumstances. This is

what the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have done, taking a right approach to the matter, When a portion of the pial of a house which

is meant for residential purpose was made use of for a non-residential purpose for a certain number of years, it cannot be said that it had acquired

independently the character of a non-residential building permanently. Taking into account the size and location, it can be put to a non-residential

one only as long as it could be conveniently used so with the consent of the other occupant of the total structure. In this case, the two authorities

have given concurrent findings of fact that this portion, taking into account its size and its location cannot have a nature different from the rest of the

structure in a permanent way.

Further, as per Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 no residential building can be converted into

non-residential one, except with the permission in writing of the Controller. No such permission was obtained before the revision petitioner

occupied the building. It is not his case that the building was already converted into a non-residential one before he entered the premises.

Therefore, his contention that the Wilding he was in occupation was a non-residential one was rightly rejected by the authorities below and there is

no merit whatsoever in the present petition, which stands dismissed. No costs.