Case Note & Summary
The revision petition was filed by the tenant against the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The landlord had purchased the property from the original owner and the tenant had attorned tenancy. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of own use and occupation for residential purposes, claiming that the tenant was using the premises as an office. The tenant resisted, contending that the requirement was not bonafide and that the landlord was only interested in higher rent, as the petition mentioned that the property would fetch Rs.75,000 per month. The tenant also argued that the petition was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) instead of the correct provision, Section 10(3)(a)(i), and that the premises let out for non-residential purposes could not be used for residential purposes. The Rent Controller found the landlord's requirement bonafide and ordered eviction, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. In revision, the High Court held that the misdescription of the provision was not fatal as the substance of the claim was clear and the tenant had not denied the possibility of residential use. The court also noted that the tenant's counsel initially sought time to vacate but later failed to report, indicating no merit in the revision. The revision was dismissed, confirming the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Own Use and Occupation - Bonafide Requirement - Landlord sought eviction of tenant from non-residential premises for residential use of himself and his family - Tenant contended that requirement was not bonafide and that the petition was filed under wrong provision - Held that the mere quoting of wrong provision is not fatal when the substance of the claim is clear and the tenant did not deny the possibility of residential use - The concurrent findings of bonafide requirement by the courts below were upheld (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the landlord's requirement for own use and occupation is bonafide and whether the misdescription of the provision under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) instead of 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is fatal to the eviction petition.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
Law Points
- Bonafide requirement for own use and occupation
- Misdescription of provision not fatal if substance of claim is clear
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in revision
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (02) 305
CRP.No.4830 of 2025 & CMP.No.24333 of 2025 & CMP.No.28902 of 2025
Mr.A.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar (for petitioner), Mr.A.Rajendra Kumar (for respondents)
S.Sriram (Died), 1.Meenakshi Sivaramakrishnan, 2.Nalini Sriram, 3.Nikhil Sriram
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Petition against concurrent orders of eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Remedy Sought
The tenant/petitioner sought to set aside the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
Filing Reason
The tenant was aggrieved by the concurrent findings ordering eviction on the ground of own use and occupation.
Previous Decisions
The Rent Controller (XII Small Causes Court, Chennai) in RCOP.No.1613 of 2016 dated 06.12.2023 ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Court, Chennai) in RCA.No.55 of 2024 dated 30.04.2025 confirmed the eviction.
Issues
Whether the landlord's requirement for own use and occupation is bonafide?
Whether the misdescription of the provision under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) instead of 10(3)(a)(i) is fatal to the eviction petition?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner/tenant argued that the landlord's requirement is not bonafide as the petition mentioned that the property would fetch Rs.75,000 per month, indicating interest in higher rent. Also, the petition was filed under wrong provision (Section 10(3)(a)(iii) instead of 10(3)(a)(i)) and the premises let out for non-residential purposes cannot be used for residential purposes.
Respondents/landlords argued that the misdescription of provision is not fatal as the substance of the claim is clear and the tenant did not deny the possibility of residential use. The bonafide requirement was established by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The mere quoting of a wrong provision of law is not fatal to an eviction petition when the substance of the claim is clear and the tenant has not denied the factual basis. The concurrent findings of fact regarding bonafide requirement are not interfered with in revision unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
the mere quoting of wrong provision of law, namely Section 10(3)(a)(iii) instead of 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be fatal, as in the counter affidavit also, the petitioner has not denied the fact that the premises can be used by the landlord and his family for residential use
Procedural History
The landlord filed RCOP.No.1613 of 2016 before the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai for eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on 06.12.2023. The tenant appealed in RCA.No.55 of 2024 before the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai, which dismissed the appeal on 30.04.2025. The tenant then filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: Section 10(3)(a)(i), Section 10(3)(a)(iii), Section 25
