V. RADHAKRISHNANversusS.N. LOGANATHA MUDALIAR

                        V. RADHAKRISHNAN                                    A
                                v.
                   S.N. LOGANATHA MUDALIAR

                          AUGUST 5, 1998

      [DR. A.S ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.]                      B

     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-
                                                                            c
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
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          E

      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
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.                             H
                                1029
    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
 . 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.
E
           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
              V. RADHAKRISHNAN v. S.N. LOGANATHA MUDALIAR                        1031

tt   and upheld by the High Court.                                                        A
            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
     son of the landlord was earlier doing his business in a shop belonging to his
     Uncle (brother of the landlord) on payment of a monthly rent of Rs.· 300/            B
     -. It has further been found, as a fact, that the son of the landlord had to leave
     that shop and he started to do business along with his father in a non-
     residential premises owned by the father. The courts below have also found
     that the son did not occupy or own any non-residential building of his own.

           According to Mr. Sundaravardan, learned senior counsel appearing for
                                                                                          c
     the appellant, the landlord had failed to establish any bonafide personal
     requirement of himself inasmuch as he was in occupation of a non-residential
     building from where he was carrying on his business and, therefore, he was
     not entitled to seek eviction of the tenant for the purpose of setting up the
     business of his son. It is submitted that so long as the landlord owned and          D
     occupied a non-residential building, he could not seek eviction of the tenant
     only for setting up the business of his son. Reliance in this behalf is placed
     by the learned counsel on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the
     Madras High Court in R. Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swarnambal, 97 L.W. 182
     wherein the learned Single Judge took the view that occupation by the                E
     Landlord of a non-residential building of his own was sufficient to disqualify
     him from claiming any other residential building in the occupation of a
     tenant even, if the same was required for the benefit of any other ·member
     of his family.

            Mr. Bhat, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other          F
     hand, submitted that the bonafide requirement, as contemplated by Sub-
     Clause (iii) has to be read so as to mean that the person for whose benefit
     the premises are sought for, should not be occupying or owning any building
     of his or her own and not hat the landlord should not be owning or occupying
     a building of his own. Learned counsel in support of his submission relies           G
     upon the judgments of Madras High Court in A.S. Kannan v. S.C.M Zackeriya,
     (100 L.W. 213) and Messrs. Indian Plywood Manufacturing Co. v. Balaramiah
     Chetty, (99 L.W. 49). Reliance is also placed by him on Kolandaivelu Chettiar
     v. Koolayana Chettiar, (1961) 1 MLJ 184 and on M/s. Annamalai and Co. by
     its partner S.S. Sundaram Chettiar v. Sita[ Achi (1975) 1 MLJ 337, wherein
     while interpretating Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease &      H
    1032                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A Rent Control ) Act, 1960, as amended in 1973, the learned Single Judge held:
            "Thus here also in the case of eviction of a tenant from a non-
            residential building the condition to be satisfied is that the person for
            whose business the building is required shall not be in occupation of
            a non-residential building of his own. In other words, the landlord
B           though he may be in occupation of a non-residential building for
            purpose of his business, could apply for eviction of a tenant in
            respect of another non-residential building if required for the purpose
            of a business which any member of his family is carrying on provided
            the person for whose benefit the non-residential building was required
            by the landlord is not already in occupation of non-residential building
c           of his own. Any other construction in my opinion would nullify the
            amendment of the section by introduction of the words 'any member
            of his family'.".

        In A.S. Kannan 's case (supra), it has been laid down that when a
D premises is sought for by the landlord for the benefit of any member of his
  family, it is only that member of the family for whose benefit the premises are
  required who should not be occupying the premises of his or her own and
  the fact that the landlord occupies premises of his own, can not disentitle him
  from claiming eviction for the b~nefit of a member of his family, who does not
  occupy any premises of his own.
E
          In Mis. Indian Plywood Manufacturing Co. (supra), it was held that
    under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, the landlord can apply for eviction
    of the tenant if the person for whose benefit the non-residential building is
    required, is not already in occupation of a non-residential building of his own.

F         In Chettiar 's case (supra), it has been laid down that a father can
    certainly file an application for eviction when he requires the premises to set
    up a separate family for his second son when his son is not occupying a
    residential building of his own in the place concerned. This was a case under
    Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and those provisions are in pari-materia with the
G   provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

          On a plain reading of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, it appears to us
    that the legislature intended that a landlord seeking eviction of the tenant
    could be disentitled from claiming possession of the non-residential pretllises
    where he requires those premises for his own use, if he is occupying a non-
H   residential building of his own. Similarly, the landlord would also be disentitled
         Y. RADHAKRISHNAN v. S.N. LOGANATHA MUDALIAR                       1033
from claiming possession of non-residential premises for the benefit of a           A
member of his family, if that member of the family was in occupation of non-
residential building of his own. Any other interpretation of this Section would
not only be doing violence to the plain language of the Section but would
result in absurdity inasmuch as the benefit of the provision would stand
denied to the family members of the landlord, who do not occupy any
premises of their own and for whose benefit eviction is sought, if the landlord     B
himself is in occupation of a non-residential premises of his own. The fact that
the landlord, who seeks eviction for the benefit of a member of his family 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. Thus, it follows and we hold that the           C
law laid down in Jagannatha Chettiar's case (supra) is not the correct law. The
learned Single Judge in Chettiar' s case did not notice, let alone consider the
three earlier judgm~nts in 99 L.W. 49; 1961(1) M.L.J. 184 and 1975(1) M.L.J.
337. In our opinion, the judgments in Kannan 's case, Indian Plywood
Manufacturing Company's case, K. Chettiar 's case and Annamalai and
Company's case (supra) lay down the correct law, which we hereby approve.           D
      In view of the above discussion, no fault can be found with the
judgments delivered by the appellate authority and the High Court holding
that the landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant to set up the
business of his son who was not in occupation of any other non-residential
premises of his own in the area. This appeal, therefore, fails anu is dismissed     E
but without any order as to costs.

       Mr. Sundaravardan, learned senior counsel submits that the appellant
and his father have been in occupation of the demised premises for more
than fifty years. He submits that sufficient time may be granted to the appellant
to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the                F
respondent. Mr. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not
oppose the prayer for grant of time but submits that only reasonable time
and not sufficient time may be granted to the tenant for the purpose. In the
established facts and circumstances of the case, it appears appropriate to us
to grant time to the appellant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession
of the premises to the landlord on or before 30. 6.1999 (Thirteenth June            G
Ninteen Hundred and Ninty Nine) subject to his filing the usual undertaking
in this court within four weeks.

R.P.                                                         Appeal dismissed.