Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the landlord, D. Sasi Kumar, against the order of the Madras High Court which had reversed concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The landlord had sought eviction of the tenant, Soundararajan, from a non-residential premises on the ground of bonafide requirement for running a garment shop, also intending to demolish and reconstruct. The tenant denied ownership and jural relationship, but the Rent Controller found the landlord's claim established based on a partition deed and payment of rent. The tenant's admission in cross-examination that he owned two other business premises was noted. The Appellate Authority upheld the eviction. The High Court, in revision, reversed the concurrent findings, holding that the bonafide requirement was not proved, particularly due to lack of approved plan and financial capacity for reconstruction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence. It clarified that the eviction was primarily under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) for own use, and the demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) was ancillary. The landlord's need to run a garment shop could be met even with minor alterations. The tenant's admission of alternate premises was sufficient to negate hardship. The Court reiterated that the crucial date for bonafide requirement is the date of application, and delay in litigation cannot penalize the landlord. The High Court's order was set aside, and the eviction order was restored, granting the tenant six months to vacate.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Sections 10(3)(a)(iii), 10(3)(e), 14(1)(b) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Scope of Revision - The High Court in a civil revision petition under the Act cannot reappreciate evidence as in an appeal; it can only examine perversity. The concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority that the landlord bonafide required the premises for a garment shop were based on evidence, including the tenant's admission of alternate premises. The High Court erred in reversing those findings. (Paras 7-10) B) Rent Control - Bonafide Requirement - Date of Determination - The crucial date for deciding bonafide requirement is the date of application for eviction, not the date of final adjudication. Delay in judicial process cannot be held against the landlord. (Para 11) C) Evidence - Admission - Admission by a party in cross-examination is the best proof. The tenant's admission of owning two other business premises was sufficient to show no hardship, even without documentary evidence. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 could reappreciate evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact on bonafide requirement of the landlord.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order dated 06.03.2017 in CRP (NPD) No. 3754/2013 and restored the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority. The tenant was granted six months' time to vacate and hand over possession.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement of landlord
- Scope of revision under rent control
- Hardship to tenant
- Admission as proof
- Delay in judicial process not to penalize landlord
