A. PALANISWAMI MUDALIAR Vs. S.C. VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that arises in this civil revision petition is whether the landlord can be deemed to be in possession of a nonresidential building when it was pledged under a key loan to the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate. The landlord filed an application under S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he requires the non -residential building in the possession of the tenant -petitioner for the purpose of his own business, which he is now carrying on in one of the buildings situated in the Main Road, Shevapet, Salem. The tenant resisted the application stating that the landlord's application is not bona fide and that he owns a number of residential and non -residential buildings in Longley Road, Mari Naicken St., and other places. The Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and that the landlord is in possession of a nonresidential building of his own, though it is under a key loan to the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate, and accordingly dismissed the petition for eviction. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge took a different view and held that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide and the landlord cannot be said to be in possession of another non -residential building, since the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate will not release the building until the loan is discharged by the landlord. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and ordered eviction of the tenant. On further revision, the District Judge confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Subordinate Judge observing that the landlord can get the Godown No. 105, Angalamman St., Salem, only after discharging the loans to the Banking Syndicate and one cannot say when exactly he would be able to get possession of that non -residential building.

(2.) It is against this order that the present civil revision petition is filed. The relevant provision of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is S. 10 (3) (a) (iii) which runs thus:

(3.) The decision in this petition turns upon the interpretation to be given to the words "not occupying... a residential building... which is his own." Admittedly the respondent is the owner of the non -residential building which is under a key loan with the Canara Banking and Industrial Syndicate. The goods stocked in the godown are given as security for the loan taken by the respondent in the course of his business. The respondent continues to be the owner of the building and can get the same released by discharging the loan. Can the landlord in such circumstances say that he has no other building of his own simply because the building is now under the control of the Banking Syndicate? Is it necessary that he should be in actual occupation of the building or is it enough for the tenant to show that the landlord owns another non -residential building of his own wherein he can carry on business? It cannot be said that the Banking Syndicate is in actual occupation of the building. It is only interested in the goods inside the godown. The landlord continues to possess the animus possidendi. The building may be out of his control for the time being, but it is capable of being brought under his control the moment he discharges the loan. He has still got legal possession of the building, though physical possession is suspended for the time being. The Banking Syndicate can exercise only a limited right over the building based on the pledge of the goods stocked inside the building.