R T RAJAMANICKAM Vs. RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner in this revision. THE respondent/ landlord filed R. C. O. P. No. 1 of 1987 on the file of the Rent controller/ District Munsif, Nagapattinam, for eviction against the tenant under Sec. l0 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the landlord, he requires the building for his own occupation and also in order to store the produce from his agricultural lands situate in Keezhakavalakudi Village . He contended that the property in question was allotted to him in a partition between himself and the other members of his family and that though he is employed and residing at madras, he intended to shift his wife and children to Nagapattinam to supervise the lands in Keezhakavalakudi village as the lands, if let out for lease, would cause prejudice and hardship to him. It is also his case that he proposed to visit Nagapattinam frequently. THE tenant contested the eviction petition on the ground that there was no bona fide in the requirement of the landlord for recovery of the building in question as he is being employed and residing at madras for a long time, that the eviction petition is not maintainable on the ground that the building in question was let out to the tenant for running a recreation club, which is for a nonresidential purpose, that the premises, being let out to the recreation club, the club should have been made as a party- respondent in the eviction petition and that the impleading of the petitioner herein alone in his individual capacity as a respondent in the eviction petition is not in accordance with law and as such, the eviction petition is not maintainable. THE learned Rent Controller though held that the building was leased out to the tenant only in his individual capacity and that the building in question was leased out for a residential purpose, however, held that the requirement for own occupation by the landlord is not bona fide. THE landlord preferred R. C. A. No. l of 1988 on the file of the Appellate authority/ Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, under Sec. 23 (l) (b) of the Act and challenged the finding of the Rent Controller in so far as the reasoning that the requirement was not bona fide is concerned. THE learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller in regard to his finding viz. , maintainability of the petition and the joinder of party, viz. , the recreation club as respondent in the eviction petition. However, the learned Appellate authority has reversed the order of the Rent Controller in regard to the bona fide requirement of the premises on the ground that it was natural in these days of Record of Tenancy Act prevailing in East Thanjavur District where if the agricultural lands are leased out to the tenant, there is no possibility of recovering the same and in view of that, there is every justification and bona fide in the claim of the landlord to seek eviction of the premises for his own occupation to supervise his lands. Thus, the learned Appellate Authority completely accepted the bona fide requirement of the demised building by the landlord and ordered eviction. THE learned Appellate Authority has also held that a building cannot be treated as a residential or non-residential on the basis of usage or for the purpose for which it is let out but as contemplated by the Act, a building can be called a residential or non-residential on the basis of structural or physical features of the building. Aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant preferred the above revision.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) TO substantiate his contention that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide Mr. S. Veeraraghavan pointed out the dismissal of r. C. O. P. No. 13 of 1980 and R. C. A. No. 72 of 1980 filed by the mother and elder brother of the landlord earlier and the finding of the authorities below that the suit premises was not a residential premises. This fact, according to Mr. S. Veeraraghavan, emphasises that there was and there is a club functioning in suit premises and it also goes to prove the club has not been made as a party. At the time of hearing, he also placed before me an order passed by this Court in W. P. No. 4894 of 1986 wherein the revision petitioner was described as the secretary of Royal Recreation Club. That writ petition was dismissed by this court. This document, according to Mr. S. Veeraraghavan, will strengthen the tenant's contention that even in 1986, Royal Recreation Club was in existence in the demised premises and that the writ proceedings were initiated by the Club represented by its Secretary. He invited my attention to the evidence of the tenant that the rental agreement was signed by the past secretary and the present Secretary only on behalf of the club. Therefore, it should be inferred from the decision reported in Phiroza Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant N. Patel, (1974)1 S. C. C. 661, that the burden of proof is on the landlord to prove his claim that the lease was in respect of an individual and not to the recreation club. Mr. S. Veeraraghavan would finally contend that the revision petition should be allowed.