CRP/2682/1996 of R.CHINNAPPAN Vs KAIRUNBEE on 11 December 2003

:O R D E R

The above civil revision petition has been filed against thejudgment and decree dated 27.8.1996 rendered in R.C.A.No.15 of 1993 by theRent Control Appellate Authority and the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagirithereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.10.1993 made inR.C.O.P.No.10 of 1989 by the Court of Rent Controller and the District Munsif,Krishnagiri.

2. Tracing the history of the case, what comes to be known isthat the husband of the respondent herein has filed R.C.O.P.No.10 of 1989before the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Krishnagiri as against therevision petitioners herein and another under Sections 10(2 ) and 14(1) of theTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960) therebypraying to direct the respondents therein/ the tenants to surrender possessionof Door Nos.44 to 47 thus evicting the respondents therein from the buildingand for costs; that since the husband of the respondent herein died during thependency of the said RCOP, the respondent was impleaded as the secondpetitioner therein.

3. The learned Rent Controller has conducted an enquiry intothe matter wherein on behalf of the landlord/the respondent would examineherself as P.W.1 for oral evidence and would mark three documents as Exs.A.1

to A.3 for the documentary evidence. On the contrary, on behalf of thetenants/the revision petitioners herein, they would examine themselvesrespectively as R.Ws.1 to 3 for oral evidence with no documents marked ontheir side. The report of the AdvocateCommissioner was marked as Ex.C.1.Thereupon, the learned Rent Controller, having assessed the evidence placed onrecord in his own way, has allowed the said RCOP thereby directing the tenantstherein to vacate the premises within two months from the date of that orderand hand-over vacant possession to the landlord since the landlord has todemolish the said premises to construct the new building.

4. Aggrieved, the revision petitioners herein, who are the respondents 1,3 and 4 before the Rent Controller, have preferred an appeal inR.C.A.No.15 of 1993 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Courtof Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri and the learned appellate authority, havingconsidered the facts and circumstances of the case, would ultimately dismissthe said appeal thereby confirming the order of eviction ordered by the RentController. It is only testifying the validity of the said concurrentfindings of both the Courts below, the petitioners have come forward to filethe above civil revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in thegrounds of the civil revision petition.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioners/tenants would submit that the point is whether Section 14(1)(a) or 14(1)((b) which is relevant in the context of the case; that noevidence has been let in by the respondent in respect of Section 14(1)(b).Citing para No.11 of the trial Court order, the learned counsel would try toconsolidate his arguments pertaining to the above provision of law. Resumingthe arguments, the learned counsel would further submit that it is only forrepair and not for demolition and re-construction the petition has been filed,which has not been discussed by the lower appellate Court at all. At thisjuncture, the learned counsel would cite a judgment delivered in VIJAY SINGH &OTHERS vs. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMAL reported in 1997-1-L.W.218 wherein the largerBench of the Honourable Apex Court in civil appeals preferred against thejudgment of this High Court rendered in Civil Revision Petition, has held:

"With the population explosion and cry for a roof in the urban areas, asituation was created where the Legislatures of different States had to enactActs regulating the conditions on which premises in such areas are to be letout and tenants are to be evicted. By and large, there is no uniformity inthe provisions applicable to different States. As such from time to time thisCourt has to construe the scope of special provisions of a particular Stateand to say what is the object behind the same."

"The framers of the Act should have made their intention more specific andclear while enacting S.14(1)(b) of the Act, instead of leaving it to thecourts to interpret the same from time to time. It is not clear and specificwhether the expression 'immediate purpose of demolishing' is linked with thecondition of the building or with the need of the landlord to demolish anexisting building in order to erect a new building on that site.... As theAct purports to give protection to the tenants from eviction it cannot be heldthat the time for eviction is to be decided at the will and desire of the

landlord. Therefore, the expression 'immediate purpose for demolishing'cannot be read to mean the immediate need and urgency of the landlord. But atthe same time, it cannot be linked only with the dilapidated and dangerouscondition of the building. The age and condition of the building has to betaken note of while judging the question of bona fide requirement of thelandlord under S.14(1)(b). But the question is as to where to draw the line?""Permission under S.14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller on mereasking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately demolish the buildingin question to erect a new building. At the same time it is difficult toaccept the stand of the appelants that the building must be dilapidated anddangerous, unfit for human habitation. For granting permission underS.14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materialsfor recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolitionof the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bona fideor not. For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bonafide, the Rent Controller has to take into account: (1) bona fide intentionof the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2)the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial position of thelandlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutoryrequirements of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors whichhave to be taken into consideration before an order is passed underS.14(1)(b). No court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition ofthe building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with otherfactors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by theRent Controller."

6. The learned counsel would also point out that the financial aspect of the landlord has not been discussed at all by the lowerappellate Court and would cite paras 11,15 and 16 from the judgment of thelower appellate Court; that it is a single petition filed against four tenantsfor demolition and re-construction and the same is not maintainable; furthermore, the landlords are not the owners of the cite, but only the building;that the site belongs to the Theosophical Society; that as per theunderstanding, the landlord has no right to put up a new structure since sheis the lessee and therefore the petition for eviction cannot be maintained;that the age of the building is only 20 years and it is not at all in adilapidated condition; that they want to carry out only change of the roof forwhich purpose only the petition has been filed.

7. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would retort stating that even in the event that the purpose is notmentioned, the allegations are to the effect of demolition and re-constructionwhich is made clear throughout; that the respondent is financially sound tocarry out the same and therefore would seek to dismiss the above civilrevision petition as without merit.

8. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to

the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both,it has become necessary on the part of this Court to solve the legalities atthe outset prior to entering into the merit of the case viz. the landlordsfiling a single petition against all the four tenants and the controversyraised on the part of the tenants regarding filing of the petition to the

9. So far as the first aspect of filing a single petition against four tenants is concerned, it is not the case of the landlord that allthe four tenants have been inducted into possession on one and the same dayand on one and the same terms and conditions particularly regarding the rent,the tenure, mode of payment etc. and it is also not the definite case of thelandlord that all these aspects are exactly the same in all the four cases.The landlords have not at all offered these details in the petition, whichcomes to be revealed on a careful perusal of the petition filed by therespondent/landlord. To be specific, in paragraph No.8 of the petition, thelandlord would state that the tenants have filed RCOP Nos.8,9,10 and 13 of1988 for the deposit of rents and that from their own deposit, it became clearthat they were in arrears of rent to a huge amount and therefore the tenantshave committed wilful default in payment of rent from July 1987 and hence theyare liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default in payment of therent from July, 1987.

10. The landlords have not offered details regarding the date of agreement duly entered into in between themselves and the tenants in eachand every case, the rent fixed for each building bearing Door Nos.44 to 47respectively of the Cooperative Colony Road, Krishnagiri nor the term oftenancy and the other conditions of the tenancy and therefore it is onlyproper for the landlord to have filed separate petitions for each and everycase thereby offering the details of each and every tenancy and the same couldnot be filed as four-in-one, amalgamating the same without offering specificdetails even though they have paid separate Court fees for each of thetenants. The Act also does not provide for such a joint petition to be filedanywhere and therefore filing of a joint petition against four of the tenants,particularly without explaining the circumstances and the law under which thelandlords have resorted to file such a joint application, is bad in law. Thereason assigned in Para No.4 that since all the four buildings are in a rowand for the purpose of demolition, the entire structure has to be pulled downthe petition is filed as a single petition is not the proper reason. Fourcases connected to four different door numbers occupied by different tenantscannot be brought under one petition, which has given way for manycomplications and the same is not permissible under law.

11. Secondly, the petition has been filed in a generalised

11. Secondly, the petition has been filed in a generalised manner under Sections 10(2) and 14(1) of the Act seeking eviction of thetenants without specifying as to under which sub-section of Section 10(2) andfor what purpose under that sub-section, the petitioners seek the evictionetc. For instance, Section 10(2)(i) deals with `mode of rent' and Section10(2)(ii) seeks the written consent of the landlord for transferring hisrights under the lease or subletting the building and Section 10(2)(b) dealswith using the building for the purpose other than for which it was leasedout. Likewise, each and every specific sub-section under Section 10(2)(iii)to (vii) specify different aspects, for which the landlord could seek theeviction of the tenant and the landlord having not specified as to under whichspecific provision of law and for the violation of which of these Sections,the eviction is sought for, the petition filed under Section 10(2) in a generalised form, for want of particulars and information, becomes bad in law,thus becoming liable to be dismissed at this score also.

12. Coming to Section 14(1) of the Act 18/1960, even here, the petitioners have generally quoted Section 14(1) without specifying whetherit is for the purpose of Section 14(1)(a) or 14(1)(b), the eviction is soughtfor. Each of these sub-sections denote different purposes for which theeviction could be sought for by a landlord i.e. under Section 14(1)(a), thelandlord could seek for the eviction of the tenant for carrying out repairswhereas under Section 14(1)(b), it could be sought for demolition andre-construction. Both these aspects have got different connotations in lawand without specifying these aspects, no proper evidence could be let in onthe part of the tenants regarding the facts and circumstances intermingled inevery individual case and therefore at this score also, the petition cannot besaid to have been filed in the manner required under law. Leaving suchspecific aspects for anyone's presumption, the Court could not decide anythingin the proper manner.

13. For all the above legal discussions held, it could be safely decided that the RCOP has not been filed in accordance with law andtherefore on all legal grounds discussed above, the said RCOP should have beendismissed. It is undesirable on the part of the lower Courts to have closedtheir eyes on all these legal aspects which have to be resolved prior toentering into deciding the facts and therefore after all these exercises,these legal aspects have to be resolved since being the basics which cannot bewarded-off or neglected and hence when the case fails on legalities, there isno necessity on the part of this Court to go into the factual position of thecase at all as it has been decided by the Rent Controller and the appellateauthority as well, and hence the following order:In result,(i)the above Civil Revision Petition, for the foregoing reasons assigned,succeeds and the same is allowed.

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 27.8.1996 rendered in R.C.A.No.15 of 1993by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagirithereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.10.1993 made inR.C.O.P.No.10 of 1989 by the Rent Controller and the District Munsif,Krishnagiri is hereby set aside.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.

Consequently, C.M.P.No.1473 of 1996 is closed.

Index: YesInternet: YesRao

To

1. The Subordinate Judge,

Krishnagiri.

2. The District Munsif,Krishnagiri.