HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL Vs. S M ISPAHANI
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-49
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
May 09,2002
HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL
Appellant
VERSUS
S.M.ISPAHANIAND
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
P.ORR AND SONS (P) LTD. V. ASSOCIATED PUBLISHERS (MADRAS) LTD. [REFERRED]VIJAY SINGH VS. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMAL [REFERRED]
R V E VENKATACHALA GOUNDER VS. VENKATESHA GUPTA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
Khyrunnissa VS. Rose Nissa [LAWS(MAD)-2005-3-117] [REFERRED TO]K SANJEEVI KUMAR VS. P SOMASUNDARAM [LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-313] [REFERRED TO]
LOGITHAKSHAN VS. E S RAHIMA BIBI [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-163] [REFERRED TO]
V ARUNACHALAM VS. SANTHANALAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
VALLI VS. B V RANGARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-416] [FOLLOWED [PARAS 8(I),21,26]]
DURGARAM VS. SYED SAHIR AHMED [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-473] [REFERRED TO]
V DURAISINGAM VS. S K NATARAJA CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-373] [REFERRED TO]
K KUNHI MOOSA VS. P SAMBANDAM CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-433] [REFERRED TO]
J VINCENT VS. T L NARAYANAMOORTHY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-593] [REFERRED TO]
M ABU TAHIR VS. M RAHAMATHULLA [LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-219] [REFERRED TO]
M ASHOKAN VS. M DHANASEKARA PANDIAN DIED [LAWS(MAD)-2009-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
V MANI VS. TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-167] [REFERRED TO]
K SOMASUNDARAM VS. ARUMUGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-232] [REFERRED TO]
J.BOORARAM ALIAS J.B.CHOUDRY VS. B.MOHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-12-85] [REFERRED TO]
V.S.RAMASAMY GOUNDER VS. P.S.P.MOHAMED MOIDEEN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-129] [REFERRED TO]
MADURAI RAMNAD BUS OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. S.JANAKI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2013-1-104] [REFERRED TO]
GIAN CHAND VS. DAVESH SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2007-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN LAL BHARDWAJ VS. ASHOK SUD [LAWS(HPH)-2013-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV PRASHAD VS. HARI DASS SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA SOOD VS. SURAM CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2011-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
ALAUDDIN SAHIT VS. R. JOTHI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-180] [REFERRED TO]
MR. HARIHARASUDHAN VS. MR. T.K. KAMESWARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-4-265] [REFERRED TO]
LIN KUEI TSAN VS. ASHOK KUMAR GOEL [LAWS(HPH)-2015-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
NISHA BHARDWAJ VS. SH. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-124] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI VISHWA NATH PATHAK VS. SH. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAMELI AND ORS. VS. BHUVNESH CHAND KAISTHA [LAWS(HPH)-2010-10-311] [REFERRED TO]
ZULFAN ALI VS. SMT. KANTA KUMARI GUPTA AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-6-108] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SUBHASH CHAND VS. SMT. KANTA KUMARI ALIAS KANTA DEVI AND ANR. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-6-160] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUJEET SINGH AND ORS. VS. NARINDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2010-6-161] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAMESH AND ORS. VS. A. RAMAKICHENANE [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-134] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT PAL DHAWAN VS. KAHAN SINGHDEAD [LAWS(SC)-2002-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
P S PAREED KAKA VS. SHAFEE AHMED SAHEB [LAWS(SC)-2004-3-111] [REFERRED TO]
D M BELGUMVALA VS. TAMILNADU REAL ESTATES PVT LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-664] [REFERRED TO]
HARIGANGABEN PUROHIT VS. V SHAHJAHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-486] [REFERRED TO]
HARI DASS SHARMA VS. VIKAS SOOD [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY THAKUR VS. ASHA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2006-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
M M MOHAMED ALI VS. ELITE ELECTRONICS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-200] [REFERRED TO]
HARIKRISHNAN DAGA VS. LOKNATH RAO [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-136] [REFERRED TO]
KESRI DEVI VS. HARI DASS SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2011-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY THAKUR VS. ASHA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2006-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN KUMAR VS. JAGJIT KAUR [LAWS(HPH)-2009-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. VS. NEENA MITTAL AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
M.M. PLASTIC CENTRE REP. BY MR. M.M. KASIM & ANR. VS. B. SEETHA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-622] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VS. SATYA PRASAD [LAWS(UTN)-2004-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
KIDDIES CHOICE, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR VS. MEYYAMMAI; PL KANNAN; PL NACHIAPPAN [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-464] [REFERRED]
GANDHI RAM VS. SATPAL SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2010-9-509] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR VS. OM PRAKASH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-290] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN VS. C UDAYACHAND [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-206] [REFERRED TO]
ZUBAIDHA STORES VS. K.PONNUSWAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-198] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR SHARMA VS. LALTA PRASAD JAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2020-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
P. R. RAVIKUMAR VS. KANDAN METALS [LAWS(MAD)-2021-7-293] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R. C. Lahoti, J. -
(1.)A suit for eviction of the tenant-appellant filed by the landlord-respondent on the ground available under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was decreed by the Rent Controller. However, the Appellate Authority reversed the order of eviction. In a revision preferred by the landlord-respondent, the High Court has restored the order of the Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved thereby the tenant has filed this appeal by special leave.
(2.)The relevant facts are not in controversy and may be summed up briefly as follows. The suit premises consist of a total area of 53800 square feet out of which 6823 square feet is built up while 46977 square feet is lying as open land. The property is identified as Door No. 64-B and is situated in Easwarankoil Street in the city of Tirupur. The building was about 50 years old in the year 1982, i.e. about 70 years old by this time. Exchange of letters between the parties reveals that the tenant had informed the landlord that some part of the building needed urgent repairs and any further delay could prove to be dangerous. Some imminent repairs were carried out by the tenant itself. The premises are being utilized by the tenant for the purpose of running a school wherein there are about 200 students with 15 members of teaching staff and 8 members of non-teaching staff. However, the school is unrecognised and mainly caters to the need of children of non-resident Indians.
(3.)The landlords are builders by profession and need the suit premises for the immediate purpose of demolition so as to construct a multi-storey complex thereat. According to the statement on oath of S.A. Ispahani - one of landlords, several multi-storey buildings have come up in the vicinity of this property and this part of the statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. The plans of the proposed construction are ready and have been tendered in evidence though the plans have not been submitted to the local authority for approval. This aspect we shall advert to a little later.
(2.)The relevant facts are not in controversy and may be summed up briefly as follows. The suit premises consist of a total area of 53800 square feet out of which 6823 square feet is built up while 46977 square feet is lying as open land. The property is identified as Door No. 64-B and is situated in Easwarankoil Street in the city of Tirupur. The building was about 50 years old in the year 1982, i.e. about 70 years old by this time. Exchange of letters between the parties reveals that the tenant had informed the landlord that some part of the building needed urgent repairs and any further delay could prove to be dangerous. Some imminent repairs were carried out by the tenant itself. The premises are being utilized by the tenant for the purpose of running a school wherein there are about 200 students with 15 members of teaching staff and 8 members of non-teaching staff. However, the school is unrecognised and mainly caters to the need of children of non-resident Indians.
(3.)The landlords are builders by profession and need the suit premises for the immediate purpose of demolition so as to construct a multi-storey complex thereat. According to the statement on oath of S.A. Ispahani - one of landlords, several multi-storey buildings have come up in the vicinity of this property and this part of the statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. The plans of the proposed construction are ready and have been tendered in evidence though the plans have not been submitted to the local authority for approval. This aspect we shall advert to a little later.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.