SUPER FORGINGS AND STEELS (SALES) PVT.LTD. versus THYAMBALLY RASULJEE (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 01-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUPER FORGINGS AND STEELS'( SALES) PVT.LTD. 
A 
v. 
THY AMBALL Y RASULJEE (DEAD) 
THROUGH LRS. 
DECEMBER 1, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDN. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 Section 10 
(3) (a) (iii)- Eviction petition under.:_ Landlord, for purposes of carrying 
B 
on his business occupying, a non-residential building, of which he is a co-
C 
owner- Whether such a building can be regarded as 'his own' envisaged 
uls JO (3) (a) (iii)- Held, Yes- landlord cannot claim benefit of ground of 
eviction available u/s JO (3) (a) (iii). 
Constitution of India-Article 136- Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and 
Rent Control) Act, 1960- Section JO (3) (a) (iii)- Eviction order under- D 
Appeal- Events and developments subsequent to institution of eviction 
proceedings- Power of Supreme Court in appeal under Article 136 to take 
congnizance of such events and developments and mould relief sought. 
The landlord filed a petition against the tenant on the ground 
available to him u/s 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease E 
and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for eviction of the tenant from the 
petition non-residential building. The petitioner submitted that he was 
carrying on business in the name and style of a partnership firm at 
non-residential building, taken on rent, not being his own and there is a 
threat of eviction. The petitioner further stated that he is not in 
occupation of any building of his own for the business which he is F 
carrying on. Eviction order was made by the Rent Controller holding 
that the facts constituting the ground of eviction u/s 10 (3) (a) (iii) were 
satisfactorily established. Both the appeal and revision filed against the 
order of eviction were dismissed~ Hence this appeal. 
Certain developments took place during the pendency or the G 
present appeal. After an order was made by this Court granting special 
leave to appeal from eviction order, partnership business which was 
carried on by the landlord at the rented non-residential building came 
to be shifted to another non-residential building. Landlord died and 
partnership business of the firm came to be carried on by some of its 
partners who were brought on record as L. R.'s of deceased landlord. H 
229 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A ·On an enquiry held by this Court it was disclosed that the partnership 
of which the deceased landlord and his sons were the partners had 
become the partnership of respondents, the sons of the deceased 
landlord and that respondents are the co-owners of non-residential 
building in which the business was now shifted and that they also 
became the co-owners of the petition non-residential building, on the 
B 
demise of the original landlord, as his heirs. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
In view of these facts which had emerged as a result of 
developments in the case during the pendency of the present appeal, the 
main question that required consideration and decision w.as, whether 
the sons of the deceased landlord who, as co-owners of a non-residential 
building are carrying on the business of their partnership in that non-
residential building be regarded as landlords not occupying a non-
residential building in the city which is their own, for obtaining u/s 10 
(3) (a) (iii) of the Act, possession of the petition non-residential building 
of which also they are co-owners. 
It was contended on behalf of the tenant that a landlord occupying 
for purpose of carrying on his business a non-residential building, of 
which he is a co-owner could not claim the benefit of ground of eviction 
available u/s 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act against a tenant in a non-
residential building of which he is an owner or a co-owner. The 
respondents submitted that a landlord who is ~ co-owner of non-
residential building where he carried on his business, not being its sole 
owner, such building could not be regarded as 'his own' envisaged u/s 
10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act as would disentitle him to the benefit of the 
ground of eviction, available thereunder. 
It was also argued on behalf of the respondents that even if the 
non-residential· building where respondent 1, the original landlord was 
carrying on the partnership business of the firm, for the carrying on of 
which he wanted to get possession of the non-residential building in 
occupation of the appellant- tenant had come to be owned by 
respondents 2 to 11 because of the death of respondent- 1 during the 
pendency of the pre

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