- (1.) This petition, for grant of Special Leave, is by the representatives of the landlord who died on 19-9-1987 after the order, dated 10-8-1987 sought to be appealed against, was passed by the High Court of Madras in C.R.P. No. 2564/1985 setting aside, in exercise of its revisional powers 'the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Madras, in R.C.O.P. No. 4404 of 1983 and confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 41 of 1985. The Andhra-Bank, a nationalised Bank, is the respondent-tenant which has succeeded in the revision proceedings before the High Court. Special Leave is granted and the appeal taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) The ground floor of a built-area of 1960 sq. ft. in No. 116, Cutcherry Road. Mylapore, Madras-4, was leased to the Andhra-Bank for a term-certain of 10 years (with an option to the bank to renew the lease for two more years) under the registered lease-deed, dated 11-8-1971 (Exh. P.1). The respondent-bank has been running one of its branches in the demised premises ever since The landlord, Dr. T. S. Subramanian. along with the members of his family was residing in the first-floor of the building.
(3.) In the year 1983 Dr. Subramanian sought eviction of the respondent-bank from the premises on grounds envisaged in S. 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of' the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 ('Act'). The eviction petition, at para 3, refers to the purpose of the lease thus : - "............As per terms of the lease the total area of 1960 Sq. ft, was let out solely for the purpose of respondent's renting a banking business, and a small portion of the same for the purpose of agent of the Bank to reside there .........." Dr. Subramanian, it would appear, had undergone a major heart-surgery at Ohio in U.S.A.; that his wife, it was alleged, was a patient of hyper-tension and that both of them were advised against claimbing stairs; that the requirement of the members of his family for residential accommodation had been increasing and that the landlord desired to use the "front portion" of the ground-floor for purposes of a business which one of his sons, Dr. Kumar Subramanian, who had resigned from a professorship in the IIT, Madras had started. The averments of the landlord in support of the prayer for eviction are the following "........The petitioner further states that he has got two sons one Mr. Ramji Subramanian and another Dr. Kumar Subramanian. His second son Dr. Kumar Subramanian was a Professor in I.I.T. Madras specialised in the field of computer science. Both his sons reside with him in the same building on the Ist floor ........." "........At the same time, the petitioner submits that the house was built by him as a residential house for the occupation of his family but since in 1971 the family was small the petitioner gave the bank the ground floor on a long lease. During this 10 years of lease period the petitioner's sons got married he got granchildren and the upstairs which was sufficient originally for the family became insufficient ........" ".........The petitioner submits that within a year of giving the said premises on lease the petitioner started having heart trouble and the doctors advised him not to climb upstaris but he was helpless as he had already leased out the ground floor to the respondent and the lease being for 10 years could not approach them to vacate. Thus in 1973 the petitioner had an open heart surgery performed at Cleveland, Ohio, wherein the doctors had to go in for a coronary bypass when the petitioner was advised to avoid climbing upstairs........" ".....At the same time in the last few years the petitioner's wife became a patient of hypertension and both the petitioner and his wife were repeatedly requested and advised by the doctors not to climb upstairs ........" ".........The petitioner submits that he is planning to use the front portion of ground floor of his premises for the said company and the back portion he and his wife will shift to as their residence downstairs ......." The bank resisted the petition and the matter went to trial before the Rent Controller. The landlord tendered evidence as P.W. 1. The bank examined a certain Sri Arunachalam as RW. 1. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court, concurrently, held that the requirements of the landlord were bona fide and reasonable and recorded findings accordingly. On the question of comparative hardships also, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found in favour of the landlord. The Trial Court, accordingly, made an order granting possession which was affirmed in appeal.;