LexPRABHAKARAN NAIR, ETC. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'.f··
-{
--
PRABHAKARAN NAIR, ETC.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
1SEPTEMBER 3, 1987
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.)
Landlord-Tenant matter-Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1960--Sections 14(1)(b), 16(2) and 30(ii)-Vires
of-Challenged.
A
B
There was 'much ado about nothing' about these Writ Petitions C
under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitions sought to challenge
the Vires of sections 14(l)(b), 16(2) and, incidentally, sec. 30(ii) of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the
ground of being arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The diffe-
rent petitions had different facts, and it was considered appropriate to
D
deal with the facts of the writ petition filed by Prabhakaran Nair (Writ
Petition No. 506 of 1986) as a typical case to appreciate the points in
issue.
In that case, the respondents-landlords, after purchasing the
premises in dispute from the erstwhile owner, filed an application for
E
the eviction of the petitioner from the said premises on the grounds of
non-payment of rent under section 10(2)(1), unlawful sub-letting under
section 10(2}(ii)(a), causing damages to the premises under section
10(2)(iii) and demolition and reconstruction of the premises under
section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act. The Trial Court ordered
eviction only under section 14(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and re-
F
construction, rejecting the other grounds. The appellate court dismis-
sed the appeal of the petitioner. The High court also dismissed the civil
revision petition of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed a petition for
Special Leave in this Court against the judgment and order of the High
Court. In the meanwhile, the City Civil Court, on January 29, 1983,
granted interim injunction, restraining the respondents-landlords from
G
demolishing the building till the disposal of an application filed by the ·
petitioner in the suit, against the erstwhile owner and the present land-
lords for specific performance of an agreement to sell the premises to
the petitioner. The injunction was stated to have been confirmed and
was still continuing as the said application for specific performance was
still pending in the City Civil Court.
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1988] I S.C.R.
A
This Court dismissed the petition for special leave, observing that
the petitioner would be at liberty to file, if so advised, a writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution,. challenging the validity of section
14(l)(b) of the Act. The petitioner filed this writ petition, challenging
the validity of sections 14(l)(b) and 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act as
being arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and unconstitutional,
B and contending consequently that the eviction order passed against him
under section 14(1)(b) was illegal. Several of the other writ petitions
were on this issue.
-..(
Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court,
C
HELD: In this case, the Court was not concerned with clause
(ii) of section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Act, a challenge to the validity
of which had been accepted by the Court in Rattan Arya and others
v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, [1986] 3 S.C.C. 385 and the
section 30(ii) had been struck down as violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. [IOEJ
D
Under section 14(l)(b) of the Act, a landlord could make an appli-
cation to the Rent Controller for possession of a building, and the Rent
Controller, if satisfied that the building was bona fide required by the
landlord for the immediate purpose of demolition and such demolition
was for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building
E sought to be demolished, might pass an order, directing the tenant to
deliver possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date.
Under the provisions of the Act, the landlord has to commence the work
of demolition not later than one month and the entire demolition work
shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date he
recovers possession of the entire building, and in the case of massive
F buildings, demolition can take six months or even a year, in which case,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, the controller may allow further
period. During that period a tenant was bound to have found some
other suitable alternative accommodation. In the case of a building
vacated for repairs under section 14(l)(a) of the Act, a tenant may
arrExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.