N V JAGANNATHAN Vs. AMRUT GOWRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner herein. THE petition for eviction was filed under Sec. l0 (3) (i) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act, 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the landlord, he purchased the petition premises under a sale deed dated 24. 6. 1983. THE petition premises was let out for the purpose of residence to the tenant. THEreafter, the tenant without consent of the landlord utilised the petition premises for non-residential purpose. THE landlord by a letter dated 27. 6. 1983 intimated the tenant that he purchased the petition premises. THE tenant accepted the tenancy and paid the rent to the subsequent purchaser, who is the petitioner in the eviction petition. On 2. 6. 1977 the landlord sent a notice to the tenant stating that the tenant without the consent of the landlord is using the premises for conducting a school under the name and style of'kalaimagal English School'. THEreafter, on 3. 7. 1983 the landlord sent a notice to the tenant requesting him to hand over the petition premises for the purpose of residence. THE tenant sent a reply on 24. 7. 1983. In the said reply, the tenant stated that the school which is being conducted in the petition premises is affiliated and recognised by the Government and therefore, the landlord is not entitled to ask for possession. In the said reply the tenant also stated that he has spent a sum of rs. 21,000 for putting up additional construction. According to the landlord, he is residing in a rented premises in West Mam-balam and paying a monthly rent of rs. 350. THE landlord therefore stated that he is not having any other premises of his own in the City of Madras. THE landlord also stated that the petition premises is required bona fide for conducting his business, which he is doing in a rented premises at No. 5, Karunanidhi 1st Cross Street, West Mam-balam.

(2.) THE tenant filed a counter slating that Kalaimagal convent was started at No. 17, Sivan Koil Street, Power House, Kodambakkam, madras 24 in the year 1962. THE first respondent in the eviction petition is the Correspondent of the said School. THEreafter, in the year 1967, the premises at No. 50, Bajanai Koil Street, Sulaimedu was used for the purpose of conducting the branch. So also in the year 1968, the branch school was opened. From 1972 onwards the second respondent in the eviction petition has become another Correspondent to the abovesaid schools. It is not correct to state that the petition premises was let out for residential purpose. THE prior owner of the petition premises did not raise any objection for conducting the school in the petition premises. THE petition premises was let out for non-residential purpose. Even the subsequent purchaser the present landlord knew that the petition premises was being used for non-residential purpose. Kalaimagal Higher secondary School is a recognised school by the Government of Tamil Nadu. THE school, which is in the petition premises is a branch of the main school called kalaimagal Secondary School. It is not correct to state that the landlord is conducting his business in a rented premises as alleged by him. Eviction cannot be asked both for the purpose of residential and non-residential. THE tenant incurred an expenditure of Rs. 21,000 by putting up additional construction in the petition premises. It is therefore, the petition for eviction filed by the landlord is liable to be dismissed. Jagannathan was examined as P. W. I. Gunasekaran was examined as R. W. I. THE landlord filed 10 documents and the tenant filed one document. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent controller came to the conclusion that the petition premises was let out for nonresidential purpose. THE Rent Controller further held that the landlord failed to establish his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under sec. l0 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. THE Rent Controller also held that the school conducted in the petition premises is recognised by the Government. For all these reasons, the petition filed by the landlord was dismissed. On appeal, the rent Control Appellate Authority also held that the petition premises was let out for non-residential purpose and therefore, the landlord cannot ask for eviction under Sec. l0 (3) (a) (i) of the Act. THE Appellate Authority further held that in view of the provisions contained in Scc. l0 (4) (ii) of the Act, the petition filed by the landlord is not maintainable. However, the Rent Control appellate Authority accepted that there is bona fide on the part of the landlord is requiring the petition premises, under Scc. l0 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Rent control Appellate Authority.

(3.) IN order that the provisions of Sec. I0 (4) (ii) may apply, the requisites to be specified, are: There must be letting. It must be for the use of as an educational institution and the building must still be used for the purpose and further the institution should be one that has been recognised by the Government or any authority empowered by the Government in that behalf and lastly such recognition must continue at the relevant date.