T SIVASANKARAN Vs. H K N KACHARLAL SOWCAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following two questions have been referred to by Mohan, J. for an authoritative pronouncement by a Bench. First is, whether a member of the family could seek the benefit of S. 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The second is, where during the pendency of rent control proceedings, the landlord executes the order of eviction and obtains possession, whether on the reversal of that order of eviction, restitution is possible.

(2.) We shall take up for consideration the first question, namely, whether a member of the family could seek the benefit of Sec. 10(3)(c), Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for a decision by a Bench in view of' the conflict between the decisions in Ramalingam v. Kothandaraman (19802 Mad LJ 283) decided by Mohan, J. and in Surekha v. Union Bank of India, Madras (1980-93 Mad LW 284), decided by Rathnam, J. in C. R. P. No. 2917 of 1980, the landlord is the owner of ground and premises No. 1, Palayappan Street, Madras. The tenant is occupying a portion of the premises for residential purposes and another portion for non-residential purposes. The landlord requires the residential portion in the occupation of the tenant for additional accommodation for himself and for his family members on the ground that the younger brother of the landlord is getting married. It is in this context that these questions arise for consideration.

(3.) The contention of Mr. K. Duralswami on behalf of the landlord is that a landlord can seek the benefit of S. 10(3)(c) not only for his own purposes but also for the purposes of his family members. According to the learned counsel, the word 'landlord, should not be given a restricted meaning. It must also take in a member of his family. On the other hand, both Mr. Vallinayagam and Mr. Unnikrishnan, on behalf of the tenant, would contend that the expression 'landlord' occurring in S. 10(3)(c) of the Act could not take in any member of his family. Mr. Kumaraswanxy on behalf of the landlord contended that under S. 10 (3)(c) of the Act, a landlord can maintain an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he requires the building for additional accommodation not only for himself but also for the purposes of a member of his family. According to the learned counsel, though the words "member of the family" do not occur in S. 10(3)(c), the expression should be interpreted widely and it should be held to take any member of the family as well. On the other hand both Mr. Vallinayagam. and Mr. Unnikrishnan, contend that the word 'landlord' in S. 10(3) (c) must be confined to himself. The learned counsel laid emphasis upon the fact that S. 10(3)(a)(i) to (iii) originally use the expression 'landlord' only. This court interpreted the section to say that it would take in not only a landlord but also a member of the family. Thereafter, the -Legislature amended the section and enabled the landlord to file a petition under Section 10(3)(a) for eviction of the tenant for his own occupation or for the occupation of his son. Again this court took the view that merely because the section uses the word 'son' the landlord should not be confined to seek eviction only for himself and for the needs of his son and that it will be open to him to maintain a 1petition for eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) for the occupation of any member of his family. Thus, while the Legislature consciously amended Sec. 10(3)(a) to bring it in conformity with the decisions of this court by introducing the words 'any member of the family, the Legislature kept untouched S. 10(3)(c). From this, the learned counsel want us to draw an inference that the Legislature did not want the benefit of S. 10(3)(c) of the Act to be given to a member of the landlord's family. Section: 10(3)(a) reads as follows: