S M SUBBIAH Vs. S NANDAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions arise under the following circumstances: The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. In this order hereafterwards, the parties to the two revisions will be referred to as the landlords and the tenant. The landlords filed R.C.O.P. No. 105 of 1989 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The landlords also filed R.C.O.P. No. 106 of 1989 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of additional accommodation. Both the cases are governed under the provisions of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Controller ordered eviction in both the cases on merits. The tenant filed Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 7 of 1991 and 9 of 1991 before the Appellate Authority, Pondicherry. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeals on merits. C.R.P. No. 806 of 1995 is directed against the order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 105 of 1989 and C.R.P. No. 807 of 1995 is directed against the order in R.C.O.P.No. 106 of 1989.

(2.) HEARD Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the revisions and Mr.G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent in both the revisions. As far as the order of eviction granted on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent is concerned, the learned counsel for the tenant argued that the materials placed before the authorities below do not disclose any conduct on the part of the tenant from which it could be inferred that the tenant in guilty of wilful default in the payment of rent. Assuming that the tenant was in default, yet the rent for the default period having been paid even before the filing of the Rent Control Petition itself, there is no cause of action for the landlords to proceed further. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the tenant relied upon three judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of India and the same would be referred to in the latter portion of the judgment. As far as the order of eviction on the ground of additional accommodation is concerned, the learned counsel for the tenant would primarily and in the foremost contend that the order must be set aside on the following grounds:

(3.) THE stage of applying the mind to the first proviso to clause (e) of sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Act would arise only after the Rent Controller decides to grant the relief on the ground alleged. In other words, the Rent Controller must first decide that the landlord has made out a case of an order of eviction under clause (c) of sub-Section (3) of Section 10 of the Act and only at that stage, the Act calls upon him to consider the question of relative hardship. What the Rent Controller at that stage has to decide is the advantages which the landlord will get if an order of eviction is passed and the hardships to which the tenant may be exposed to in such an event. If, on a consideration of the materials, the Rent Controller finds that the hardships of the tenant will outweigh the advantages to the landlord, then he shall reject the application. THE stage for considering relative hardship, as already stated, will arise only after the Court finds that the landlord had made out a case for an order of eviction. That is what the Honourable Supreme Court of India also said in Hiralal moolchand Doshi v. Barot Raman Lal Ranchhoddas, AIR 1993 SC 1449. In that case, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the landlord need not plead hardships in the petition itself and it is open to him to adduce evidence in regard thereto during trial. THE tenant was also likewise entitled to. Hardship is a common factor in the provision of the Bombay Rent Act referred to above as well as in the Pondicherry Rent Act and the power of the Court to pass or not to pass an order is made dependent upon the hardship that is likely to be caused in the event of an order being passed or not being passed. Both under the Tamil Nadu Rent Act as well as under the Pondicherry Rent Act, which are in pari materia, the Court has to consider of the landlord. If an order of eviction for additional accommodation has to be passed and compare those aspects to take a decision to reject the application or not. THErefore even though a landlord might have succeeded in establishing his requirement for additional accommodation, yet relying upon the proviso referred to above, the Court has the power to reject the application. In the Pondicherry Rent Act, the hardship of the tenant is pitted against the advantages of the landlord. In other words, the advantages, which the landlord may get by securing an order of eviction, will be purely within his knowledge and therefore it is he who has to establish the same. Only when such advantages are established, the tenant would be in a position to put forward the hardships which he is likely to face if an order of eviction is passed and require the Court to consider his hardships and the advantages of the landlord to arrive at a decision. THErefore initially the burden, according to me, is on the landlord to establish the advantages on his side to secure an order of eviction. Likewise the tenant has to on his side establish the hardships. In view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Haralal Moolchand Doshi v. Barot Raman Lal Ranchhoddas, AIR 1993 SC 1449 even though there is no pleading on the relative hardship, either in the Rent Control Petition filed by the landlord or in the objections filed by the tenant, yet it is open to both the parties to establish the same in their respective oral evidence.