T. Narayanan vs Sankaranarayanan (Deceased) and Others

T.V. Masilamani, J.—This revision petition is filed challenging the fair and decretal orders dated 31.3.1997 in R.C.A. No. 1056 of 1993

passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes). Madras confirming the eviction order dated 30.7.1993

passed by the Rent Controller (X Judge. Court of Small Causes). Madras in R.C.O.P. No. 3002 of 1989. The revision petitioner is the tenant and

respondents 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased landlord, first respondent herein, who died pending the revision petition. The

second respondent is the father of the deceased first respondent who joined with his son in filing the eviction petition against the tenant.

The first respondent/landlord (since deceased) filed the petition against the revision petitioner/tenant u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings

(Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ""Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) on the ground that since he is an Advocate practising in the

High Court, Small Causes Court and other Courts in Chennai, he requires the petition building bona fide for his occupation for the purpose of

carrying on his profession as an Advocate and that since he was hitherto practising along M/s.M.Shakir Ali and N. Isthiaq Ahmed. Advocates,

107, Law Chambers, High Court premises, Madras, he has to set up his office in the petition premises and that therefore the respondents have to

be evicted from the demised premises.

Both the Courts below agreed with such contention on the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced on either side and upon

hearing the arguments put forth by both the counsel and ordered eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. Hence, the revision.

The factual aspect of the matter that the deceased first respondent herein was practising as an Advocate in Madras High Court, City Civil Court

and Small Causes Court till his death during the pendency of this revision petition is not in controversy. Similarly, the fact that the second

respondent herein, father of the deceased first respondent, joined with him in filing the eviction petition by way of abundant caution in order to

avoid any technical objection that may be raised in future is also not in dispute. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the deceased

first respondent did not own any-other non-residential building except the petition building in Channai is not challenged in this revision.

The only point that has arisen for consideration in view of the subsequent event, i.e., death of the first respondent is whether the respondents 2

to 5, legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to the benefit of the impugned order of eviction passed by the Courts below.

The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court rendered by S.S. Subramani. J. (as he then was) in

1996 2 L.W. 320 (Ramadoss. K. v. IS. Vaidyanathasamy and another) in support of his contention that the respondents 3 to 5, who are the legal

representatives of the deceased first respondent, are entitled to the benefit of order of eviction passed by the Courts below. He has also cited the

decision P.V. Papanna and others Vs. K. Padmanabhaiah, in support of his contention that the requirement must continue to exist till the eviction

proceeding is finally disposed of.

It is no doubt true that the subsequent events as in this case have to be taken into consideration to decide the question as to whether the bona

fide requirement of the landlord is still subsisting even after his death and if so, whether the benefit of an order of eviction enures in favour of the

legal representatives. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Govind Vs. Dr

Jeetsingh, to fortify his contention that since the ground of personal requirement of the building by the deceased first respondent, to carry on his

profession as an Advocate is no longer available to his legal representatives, the respondents 3 to 5 herein.

In view of the rival contentions of both the counsel with reference to the above decisions, it has become necessary to consider whether the bona

fide requirement of the premises by the deceased first respondent herein who was a practising Advocate can be considered as a valid ground to

sustain the order of eviction passed by the Courts below in favour of his legal representatives, the respondents 3 to 5 herein.

In this context, it is necessary to extract the provision u/s 27 of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 as under:-

Proceedings by or against legal representatives-

(1) Any applications made, appeal preferred, or proceeding taken, under this Act by or against any person, may in the event of his death, be

continued by or against his legal representatives.

(2) Where any application, appeal or other proceeding could have been made, preferred or taken, under this Act by or against any person, such

application, appeal or other proceeding may, in the event of his death, be made, preferred or taken by or against his legal representatives.

In view of the factual position of the case decided in 1996 (2) L.W. 320 (Ramadoss,K. v. I.S. Vaidyanathasamy and another), it is evident

that son of the deceased landlord in that case, who was associated with his father in running the hotel business was entitled to continue the same

business and also to urge the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for carrying on the business. It is needless to elaborate on this aspect

of the matter for the simple reason that the bona fide requirement urged by both the deceased father and son was one and the same.

Therefore in that case, it was held with reference to the principle laid down in Pukhraj Jain Vs. Mrs. Padma Kashyap and another, in

paragraphs 12 and 13 as follows:-

Maxim of actio personalis mortur cum persona cannot apply, either, on principle or on facts. In Official Liquidator, Supreme Bank Ltd v. P.A.

Tendolkar, this Court while discussing applicability of the maxim held, ""whatever view one may take of the justice of the principle it was clear that it

would not be applicable to actions based on contract or where tortfeasors'' estate had benefitted from a wrong done.

Thus, it was held there as follows:-

The benefit of eviction enures to the benefit of the estate and the requirement of the landlord continues even after his death.

On the contrary, the facts of the case adumbrated in Govind Vs. Dr Jeetsingh, disclose that since pending Second Appeal before the High

Court, the wife of the landlord died inasmuch as three rooms which were in her occupation became vacant, it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme

Court that in view of the subsequent event of death of the landlord''s wife leaving three rooms vacant, there was no more bona fide need of the

landlord to evict the tenant of the premises in question.

Hence, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case also in view of the subsequent event of death of the landlord, the

bona fide requirement of the first respondent being an Advocate cannot be taken as a ground to sustain the order of eviction by his legal

representatives especially when none of them is a practicing lawyer. The learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that none of the

legal representatives of the deceased first respondent continues his profession as an Advocate and therefore, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the ratio laid down in the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In that event u/s 27 of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of

1960, the proceedings initiated by the first respondent, deceased landlord cannot be continued by his legal representatives, the respondents 3 to 5

herein for the simple reason that the requirement of the landlord does not continue after his death.

In view of the position of law, as adjudicated in the said decision and having regard to the factual aspect of the matter in this case, this Court is

of the considered view that the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises available to the deceased first respondent u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil

Nadu Act 18 of 1960 is no longer available to the respondents 3 to 5 as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent in whose favour the

order of eviction was passed by the Courts below. It follows necessarily that the revision petitioner/tenant is not liable to be evicted from the

petition premises and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition has to be allowed. Thus, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the fair and

decretal orders of both the Courts below. However, there will be no order as to costs.