LexS. M. GOPALAKRISHNA CHETTY versus GANESHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D 273 S. M. GOPAE,AKRISHNA CHETTY v. GANESHAN & ORS. August 11, 1975 [A. ALAG!RISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.) .i~ladras Buildings (L"ease &, l?.ent Control) Act 1960-Sectiori 2(6)- Sectlon 14-Whether a landlord l1aving a life interest can evict a tenant for bcna fide requirernent-Whether a single eviction petition wi~h regard to two .tenancies in t.l:e uune pren1ises is maintainable. The appell~nt la!ldlord is a holder of. Ii~e interest in the property in question He filed a surt against the tenant for eviction on the grounds of bona fide re· quirement by him for demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller held the requirement of the landlord bona. fide and ordered eviction. of the tenant. The appellant filed one petition for ev:Cting the tenants in respect of two different tenancies, one for residential purpose and the other for non·residcntial purpose. 1-he Appellate Authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 dismissed the appellant's application for eviction on the ground that a landlord hav'..ng a life interest cannot seek eviction for bona fide requirement tor demolition and reconstruction. The High Court in Revision refused to inter- fere with the order of tl1e Appellate Authority under the Act. On appeal hy special leave, it was contended by the appellant that 1he land- lord having a life interest is ent'.,tled to evict the tenant for bona fidi requirement for demolition and reconstruction under section 14 of the Act. The respondent _contended that gr<.:Hting of the application of the landlord might prejudice the .-interest of the remainder tnan. HELD : Allowing the appeal, · (1) Definition of landlord under section 2(6)- is wide enough to include the appellant who holds a life interest in the premises. The right between the nppellant and the remainder man with regard to the deed of settlement would have to be ,vorked out in appropriate proceedings. The Act in question, is a self-contained and .:;omplete Code for regulation of the rights between the land- :1ord and tenants. Even a possible dispute between the landlord and the ren1ainder man cannot affect adjudication of ·the claim of the landlord against :his tenant's under the provisions of the Act. [275F-276D] F (2) A single petition w!.th regard to two tenancies in the same premises is maintainable when the tenancy is one. [276D-E.] C!vrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App~als Nos. 493-495 of 1974 Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 9th August, 1973 of the Madras High Court in Ovil Revision Petition Nos. 1470 to 1472 of 1973. K. S. Ramamurthi, T. N. Vallinayagam, R. N. Nath and V. Maya- .'krislznan, for the appellant. M. Natesan, K. Jayaram and R. Chandrasekhar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 'H GoswAMI, J.-These appeals by special leave are directed against the order of the High Court of Madras in three Civil Revision Petitions under section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) • 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Cl.9-7611 S.C.R. Act 1960, briefly the (Act) whereby the High Court refused to interfere with the orders of the appellate authority under the Act holding that the appellant (hereinafter to be described as the landlord) has no nght to evict the respondents (hereinafter to be described as the tenants)' from the premises in question on the ground of demolition and recon- struction. The tenancy und·~r the landlord is admitted by the tenants. There is also no question with regard to validity of the notice of eviction. The only questions in controversy in these appeals are whether the land- lord in this case, who is the holder of life interest in the property, is entitled to evict the tenant~ under section 14 (!) ( b) of the Act on the ground that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for demoli- tion and for reconstruction. The second question raised in one of the appeals is whether a single petition is maintainable to evict the tenants from two different tenancies one for residential purpose and the other for non-residential purpose. The latter point has been held by the High Court in favour of the landlord bnt the tenants are raising it in• seeking to supporl the earlier order of the appellate authority; The premises are situated at Anna Pillai Street, Madras. Originally the premises belonged to late S. Manicka Chettyar, father of s: M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.