Dated : 25.08.2023
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(MD).No.230 of 2011
Introduction:
The case revolves around a civil revision petition filed by the landlords against a fair and decreetal order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The petition seeks to set aside the order and restore the eviction order issued by the Rent Controller. The dispute pertains to the eviction of a tenant from a property under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the grounds of own use and occupation by the landlords.
Background:
The landlords claimed ownership of the property and asserted that they had purchased it in 2002. They had previously rented out the property to the respondent (tenant) to operate a godown. Upon the expiration of the rental agreement in 2005, the landlords requested the tenant to vacate, stating their intention to use the property for their business. The tenant contested this demand, arguing that he had been in possession of the property for over 30 years, engaged in an agricultural products business. The dispute culminated in an eviction petition filed by the landlords, which was initially granted by the Rent Controller.
Court Proceedings:
The tenant appealed the eviction order, and the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed it. Dissatisfied with this decision, the landlords filed a civil revision petition. Their counsel argued that since they were also running a business in a rented property, and they didn’t own any other suitable commercial space in the town, the eviction for own use and occupation was justified. The tenant’s counsel, on the other hand, contended that the landlords did not require the property for their business, as they rented it out immediately after purchase. They further emphasized the unsuitability of the premises for the landlords’ business.
Issues Raised:
The central issues revolve around the bonafide requirement of the property for own use and occupation by the landlords. The court needed to determine whether the landlords’ claim to use the property for their business was legitimate, whether the premises were suitable for that business, and whether the tenant’s long-term occupation of the property affected the eviction order.
Court’s Analysis and Decision:
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan considered the facts presented by both parties and scrutinized the lower court’s findings. The judge observed that the tenant had been in possession of the property for over 30 years and had been conducting his business there. The landlords’ argument that they started using a rented property for their business in 2000 played a pivotal role in the decision.
The judge analyzed the landlord-tenant relationship history and the conditions stipulated in the rental agreements. The judge emphasized that the landlords had the prerogative to choose the property suitable for their business. The court cited a precedent (H. Balaraman vs. M.J. Sivasachidanandam) which supported the landlord’s right to decide the premises for their business without tenant interference.
Conclusion:
The court held that the landlords had established their genuine need for the property for their business. It ruled in favour of the landlords, allowing the eviction and restoring the Rent Controller’s order. Acknowledging the tenant’s long-term occupancy and agricultural business, the court granted the tenant time until December 31, 2023, to vacate the premises.
This case analysis underscores the importance of considering multiple factors in eviction disputes, including the landlords’ business needs, the suitability of the property, and the tenant’s occupation history. The court’s decision ultimately favoured the landlords’ right to choose the premises for their business, reaffirming the principles of landlord-tenant relationships and property rights.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreeya S Shekar
