Skip to content


K.A. Loganatha Naicker Vs. S.R. Balasundaram Mudaliar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1974)2MLJ256
AppellantK.A. Loganatha Naicker
RespondentS.R. Balasundaram Mudaliar
Excerpt:
- - the common features which are to be taken notice of by the controller and the appellate authority, while dealing with such application, are that the controller or the appellate authority as the case may be, should firstly be satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bonafide and if he is so satisfied, shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the part of the building for the possession of which the application for additional accommodation has been filed. if the controller on the appellate authority is not so satisfied, then he shall make an order rejecting the application. the proviso says that in cases where an application is made by a landlord for possession of a part of the building, whether residential or non-residential, when he is in..........has committed wilful default. the rent controller dismissed the petition on both the grounds. the appellate authority allowed the petition on both the grounds. the appellate authority found that the non-payment of rent was wilful and that it is left to the landlord to make a choice as regards the portion of his own building for further or additional accommodation and it is not for the tenant to dictate as to which portion in the said house is convenient to the landlord. but, on the question whether an eviction should be ordered under section 10 (3) (c), no definite finding has been given either by the rent controller or by the appellate authority regarding the crucial issue which arises in those cases on the question of hardship which is likely to be caused to the tenant by reason of.....
Judgment:

T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.

1. The respondent filed an application under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (XVIII of 1960), and also on the ground that the petitioner (tenant) has committed wilful default. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on both the grounds. The appellate authority allowed the petition on both the grounds. The appellate authority found that the non-payment of rent was wilful and that it is left to the landlord to make a choice as regards the portion of his own building for further or additional accommodation and it is not for the tenant to dictate as to which portion in the said house is convenient to the landlord. But, on the question whether an eviction should be ordered under Section 10 (3) (c), no definite finding has been given either by the Rent Controller or by the appellate authority regarding the crucial issue which arises in those cases on the question of hardship which is likely to be caused to the tenant by reason of such an order of eviction asked for by the landlord.

2. In cases arising under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act, certain stated considerations arise besides the normal features which usually come up for decision in Courts in the matter of the acceptance or rejection of application for eviction filed by landlords for additional accommodation.

I am not generally considering in this order the various prescriptions and the necessary corollaries which have to be noticed and on which a finding has to be given by the authorities dealing with eviction matters. We are here concerned with an application under Section 10 (3) (c) and I shall therefore deal with the normal and the special circumstances attendant upon such an application for additional accommodation.

3. Under Section 10 (3) (c), a landlord who is keeping a part of the building, whether residential or non-residential, may notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) of Sub-section (3), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or purposes of business which he is carrying on, as the case may be. The common features which are to be taken notice of by the Controller and the appellate authority, while dealing with such application, are that the Controller or the appellate authority as the case may be, should firstly be satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bonafide and if he is so satisfied, shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the part of the building for the possession of which the application for additional accommodation has been filed. If the Controller on the appellate authority is not so satisfied, then he shall make an order rejecting the application. The above special feature, in an application for such an additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (c), is subject to the proviso to Section 3 (e) of the Act. The proviso says that in cases where an application is made by a landlord for possession of a part of the building, whether residential or non-residential, when he is in possession of the other part of the building, then the Controller shall reject the application if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. The further proviso to this sub-clause enables the Controller to give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the part of the building asked for and to extend the said time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate. The crucial aspect, therefore, which according to me could be characterised as a special incident in matters arising under Section 10 (3) (e), is that there should be a categorical finding by the statutory authorities that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord. The special prescription is not to be considered as otiose or as an irrelevant appendage in the statute. It has been specially provided for so as to avoid unnecessary hardship to the tenant, as in the case under consideration the landlord is only seeking additional accommodation in the same premises, whether for residential or non-residential purposes. Therefore, it becomes absolutely imperative for the authorities, in cases arising under section (3) (c) of the Act, to give a specific finding whether the hardship which the tenant is likely to suffer would outweigh the advantage to the landlord or vice versa. Unless this aspect is noticed and adjudged upon by the statutory authorities, there is no complete enquiry as the statute contemplates in regard to the petitions arising under Section 10 (3)(c).

4. Such an enquiry has not been undertaken in this case and the result is that no specific finding has been given by the appellate authority or the Rent Controller on this matter. There has not been,, therefore, a proper disposal of the application under Section 10 (3) (c) as contemplated by the statute.

5. Whilst, therefore, allowing the civil revision petition, the subject-matter is remitted to the Rent Controller for him to hear parties again and give a finding; on the evidence on record, whether the hardship to the tenant would outweigh the advantage to the landlord or otherwise and to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //