K.S. SUNDARARAJU CHETTIAR versus M.R. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 18-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, G.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K.S. SUNDARARAJU CHEITIAR 
v. 
( 
M.R. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU 
FEBRUARY 18, 1994 
B 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, .1.T.] 
-
Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: Section 
r 
10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b). 
c 
Landlord--Eviction-Notice-f'etition-Non-mentioning of evic,tio11 
grou11d ill 11otice--But groulld mentiolled in petitioll-Whetlter disellft1Jes 
lalldlord to claim relief 
Evictio1t-Bona fide requirement-Factors relevant i11 determin-
illg-Failure of landlord to establislr-Effect on bo11a fide requircme11t ill 
D subsequent proceedings. 
Evictio1t-Cause of eviction-Wl1ether recurring i11 llature-Landlord's 
failure to establish cause of action-Wlietller debars him from establishing 
cause of action in subsequellt eviction proceedings. 
E 
Re/II Act-Nature of-W/1ether a legi.slation for protection of tenant 
0111y-W11ether regulates inter se rig/its of lalldlord and te11ant. 
The appellant-landlord obtained an eviction order against his tenant 
under section 14(1)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent 
Control) Act, 1960. Thereafter, he let out the suit premises to the respon· 
F 
dent but subsequently filed an eviction petition against him under section 
10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Act i.e. on the grounds that (I) he required 
more space not only for expansion of his own business but also for 
expansion of pawn broking partnership business of bis wife and daughter-
in-law; (ii) the suit premises were old and in a dilapidated condition 
G requiring urgent demolition and construction. The Rent Controller al-
lowed the petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) holding that the landlord 
required the premises for own occupation but rejected his case that he 
required the premises for demolition and construction under section 
·~ 
14(l)(b) •. 
~ 
.H 
On appeal the competent authority affirmed the li"dings of the Rent 
20 
.. • 
CHETTIAR v. RAMACHANDRANAIDU 
21 
Con!;oller that the suit premises were bona fide required by the landlord A 
for his own use and ocrupation. 
The respondent-tenant filed a revision petition in the High Court 
which held that (i) the landlord was not consistent with reference to I.be 
location of the Company which was the pawn- broking business of partner-
ship; (ii) it was not clear as to what exactly was the area that was required 
by the respondent for the sailJ pawn broking business; and (iii) the 
appellate authority had failed to consider not only the totality offacts and 
circumstances of the case but also the bona fide on the part of the landlord 
on account of alleged requirement of the partnership business. According· 
B 
ly the High Court by its order dated April 11, 1990 remanded the matter C 
to the appellate authority to dispose of the case afresh In accordance with 
law. 
After the order of remand, the appellate authority affirmed the order 
of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the tenant under Section D 
10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Act holding that (I) the eviction grounds founded 
ln the proceedings ~re not identical with grounds Indicated in the notice 
for eviction inasmuch as the case of the bona fide requirement on account. 
of expansion of partnership business had not been mentioned in the notice; 
(ii) but in view of the tenant's admission that the landlord was running a 
jewdlery shop and also a pawn broker's business run by his wife and E 
daughter-in-law, the landlord was entitled to claim eviction of the tenant 
bona fide on account of the said two business concerns; (iii) the documents 
filed by the landlord clearly establish that partnership business had in fact 
been run even though it was not mentioned in the eviction notice; (iv) 
documents of accounts of the partnership filed after the first order of F 
remand clearly establish that the partnership business had been slowly 
progressing and it was assessed for income tax from the year 1985 onward; 
and (v) in view of the admitted position that the said two business 
establishment were being run, much importance was not required to be 
attached as to the location of the pawn broking business . 
G 
Thereafter, the respondenMenan4 filed a Revision Petition and the 
High Court held that the appellate authority had not decided the appeal 
after remand in conformity with the order of remand dated April 11, 1990. 
Accordingly the High Court by i!s order dated December 11, 1992 
remanded the appeal for the second time to the appellate authority with a H 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORT

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.