V. RADHAKRISHNAN versus S.N. LOGANATHA MUDALIAR

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1029 · Decided: 05-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

V. RADHAKRISHNAN 
v. 
S.N. LOGANATHA MUDALIAR 
AUGUST 5, 1998 
[DR. A.S ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 : 
S. l 0(3) (a) (iii)-Non-residential Building-Eviction of tenant from-
Landlord making application for- Bonafide requirement for setting up 
business for his son-Son not having any other non-residential building of 
his own-But Landlord having another non-residential building in the city 
Held, landlord was entitled to seek eviction of tenant to set up business of 
A 
B 
c 
his son who was not in occupation of any other non-residential premises of D 
his own in the area-The fact that landlord is himself occupying a building 
of his own cannot operate as a bar to the landlord seeking eviction for the 
benefit of a member of his family who does not occupy any premises of his 
own. 
R. Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swarnambal (97 L.W. 182), overruled 
A.S. Kannan v. S.C M Zackeriya, (100 L.W. 213); Messrs. Indian 
Plywood Manufacturing Co. v. Balaramiah Chetty (99 L. W. 49) Kolandaivelu 
Che/liar v. Koolayana Chettiar, (1961) I MLJ 184 and Mis. Annamalai and 
E 
Co. by its partner S.S. Sundaram Che/liar v. Sita! Achi, (1975) 1 MLJ 33, F 
approved 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5005 
of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.12. 96 of the Madras High G 
Court in C.R.P. No. 863 of 1992. 
R. Sundaravaradan, Ms. Asha Nair, Ms. Shanti Narayanan and K. Ram 
Kumar, for the Appellant. 
S.N. Bhat and K.K Mani for the Respondent. 
1029 
H 
1030 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant is the tenant of a non-residential building of which the 
respondent is the landlord. The respondent filed an eviction petition in the 
court of the Rent Controller, Chengalpattu on two grounds, i.e. (I) wilful 
default in payment of rent by the appellant and (2) bonafide personal 
B requirement of the landlord for the purpose of setting up his son's business. 
On a perusal of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller held that there 
was no wilful default in payment of rent and also that the landlord had not 
established his bonafide personal requirement. Vide order dated 22.11.1990, 
C the eviction petition was, therefore, dismissed. The respondent challenged 
the order of the Rent Controller before the appellate authority. The appellate 
authority agreed with the Rent Controller that there was no wilful default in 
payment of rent on the part of the tenant but held that the ground of bonafide 
personal requirement had been established by the landlord and passed an 
order of eviction, setting aside the order of the Rent Controller vide judgment 
D dated 31.1.1992, The order of the appellate authority was put in issue by the 
E 
. tenant through civil revision petition No. 863/92 before the High Court of 
Madras. A learned Single Judge of the High Court agreed with the findings 
recorded by the appellate authority and held that the landlord had established 
bonafide personal requirement and vide judgment and order dated 24.12.1996, 
upheld the order of the appellate authority and ordered eviction of thi; tenant. 
Aggrieved, the tenant is before us by special leave. 
The short question, that requires our consideration is with regard to the 
scope and interpretation of Section 10 (3)(a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings 
(Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act). That Section reads 
F thus : 
"10 (3) (a) - A landlord, may, subject to the provisions of clause 
( d), apply to the controller for an order directing the tenant to put the 
landlord in possession of the building-
G 
(iii) In case any other non-residential building, if the landlord or 
any member of his family is not occupying for purposes of a business 
which he or any member of his family is carrying on, a non-residential 
building in the city, town or village concern which is his own; 
Before examining the scope and interpretation of the Section, we would 
H like to advert to the findings of fact as recorded by the appellate authority 
tt 
V. RADHAKRISHNAN v. S.N. LOGANATHA MUDALIAR 
1031 
and upheld by the High Court. 
It has been found as a fact that the landlord had filed the eviction 
petition on the ground that the premises in question were bonafide required 
by him for setting up the business of his son. It has also been found that the 
A 
son of the landlord was earlier doing his business in

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