HAMEEDIA HARDWARE STORES Vs. B MOHAN LAL SOWCAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether a landlord who seeks eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building (other than a non-residential building which is used for keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use) under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is required to prove that he requires the said building for his own use or for the use of any member of his family bona fide in the proceedings instituted before the Controller.

(2.) The appellant is a partnership firm representated by its partner, S. Peer Mohammed. The respondent's brother was carrying on business in hardware in the front portion of the ground floor of the premises bearing No. 157, Kutcheri Road, Mylapore, Madras-4. The appellant purchased the said running business from the brother of the respondent on 5-7-1974. The said building, however, belonged to the father of the respondent. After purchasing the business, the appellant became a tenant under the father of the respondent by paying an advance of Rs. 1,500/- and agreeing to pay a rent at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month for the portion in which it commenced to carry on the business. In the rear portion of the ground floor of the premises one Mrs. Janaki Ammal was residing as a tenant. Mrs. Janaki Ammal vacated the said residential portion in October, 1974. With effect from 5-10-1974 the appellant took the portion vacated by Mrs. Janaki Ammal also on rent from the father of the respondent by paying Rs. 525/- as advance and agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 175/-. The rent of this portion was increased subsequently to Rs. 315/- per month. On 25-11-1980 the appellant received a notice from an advocate, who was acting on behalf of the father of the respondent terminating the tenancy of the appellant in respect of both the portions with effect from 31-12-1980 and requiring the appellant to deliver possession of the two portions of the ground floor of the premises in question to the father of the respondent on the ground that he needed the premises for the occupation of his son. The appellant sent a reply denying the right of the respondent's father to evict the appellant from the premises. Thereafter it is stated that the ownership of the premises in question was transferred in favour of the respondent by his father. Thereafter the respondent asked the appellant to increase the rent payable for the premises. In order to avoid litigation, the appellant agreed to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month by way of rent for both the portions in the year 1981 and also paid a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as advance. On 9-6-1982 an agreement was entered into in respect of both the portions specifying that the lease should remain in force till 8-5-1983. After the expiry of the said period, it is stated, the respondent again demanded enhanced rent. On the appellant not complying with the said demand the respondent instituted a petition for eviction of the appellant in the Court of the Controller at Madras under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the premises in question were needed by his wife for carrying on pawn broker business which she was carrying on elsewhere. The appellant resisted the petition. It was inter alia contended by the appellant that the requirement of the wife of the respondent was not bona fide and the petition was liable to be dismissed. After trial, the Controller dismissed the petition holding that the tenancy in question was in respect of both the residential and non-residential portions and that the respondent could not seek eviction of the appellant as the major portion of the demised premises was of residential character. Aggrieved by the decision of the Controller the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellte Authority dismissed the appeal. Thereupon the respondent preferred a revision petition before the High Court of Madras in Civil Revision Petition No. 215 of 1986. That petition was allowed by the High Court holding that it was not necessary for the respondent to establish that his requirement was bona fide as the question of bona fides of a landlord's requirement did not arise for consideration at all in a case falling under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It, however, held that the claim of the respondent was bona fide. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision petition and directed the appellant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras.

(3.) The crucial question which arises for consideration in this case is whether it is necessary for a landlord, who institutes a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, to establish that his requirement is bona fide or not. As can be seen from the long title of the Act it was enacted by the State Legislature to amend and consolidate the law relating to the regulation of the letting of residential and non-residential buildings and the control of rents of such buildings and the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the State of Tamil Nadu. Section 10 of the Act provides that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 or Sections 14 to 16 of the Act. The material portion of sub-section (3)(a) of Section 10 of the Act, which is relevant for purposes of this case reads thus: