High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
B.K.Kumaran v. S.Prakash - CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1294 OF 2002  RD-TN 762 (27 September 2002)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1294 OF 2002
C.M.P.No.13841 OF 2002
B.K.Kumaran ... Petitioner/ Tenant -Vs-
S.Prakash ... Respondent/Landlord Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 from the fair and decretal order, 30.7 .2002, passed in R.C.A.No.2 of 2002, by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Judge), Ootacamund.
For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Seetharam
For Respondent .. ---
This revision is preferred against the order, dated 30.7.2002, passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Judge), Ootacamund, in R.C.A.No.2 of 2002. The tenant, who is the appellant before the appellate authority, is the petitioner herein.
2. The respondent in this revision petition is the owner of the building bearing Door No.137/F/58-A (Old Door No.137/F/60) of Ward No.31 , Ettins Road, Ootacamund and the petitioner herein is a tenant under him in respect of the second floor of the building. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 1 0(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1 960 (in short 'the Act'), seeking direction to vacate the petitioner herein and for delivery of possession. In the petition, the respondent/landlord contended that the petitioner/tenant is in wilful arrears of rent from 1.10.1998 onwards and he has converted a portion of the non-residential building into residential one for living and thus used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was rented out and the addition and alterations to the building under tenancy are unauthorised and without the consent of the landlord and hence the petitioner/tenant is liable to be evicted from the building. The petitioner/tenant filed counter statement stating that he is running a Typewriting Institute known as "Vivekananda Technical Institute" and also an Accountancy Institute known as "Nilgiris Commercial Institute" at the premises and both the institutes have been approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the approval still continues and hence no order of eviction can be passed and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition. At the request of both the parties, the Rent Controller took up the issue relating to the maintainability of the petition and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to enquire the petition as preliminary point and after hearing both sides, concluded that the petition for eviction was filed only under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the Act and the bar under Section 10(4) of the Act is only for a petition for eviction filed under Section 10(3) of the Act and in so far as the petition in question is concerned, there is no bar and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to enquire into the petition and answered the point accordingly. The petitioner/tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.2 of 2001 to the Appellate Authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order, dated 30.7.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/tenant has preferred the present revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant contends that admittedly the building has been let for use as an educational institution and hence no order for eviction can be passed under Section 10(4) of the Act and hence the orders of the courts below are liable to be set aside. It is no doubt true that the building in question was let for use as an educational institution as seen in the Agreement of Lease, dated 22.11.1991. The question is as to whether the bar under Section 10(4) of the Act is applicable to the petition filed for eviction in the present case in so far as the building is concerned.
4. Section 10(4) of the Act stipulates that no order for eviction shall be passed under sub-section (3) of Section 10 in respect of any building which has been let for use as an educational institution and is actually used as such provided the institution has been recognised by the Government and the recognition continues. Admittedly, the present petition for eviction has been filed under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the Act and the landlord did not seek for eviction on any of the grounds enumerated under Section 10(3). The bar under Section 10(4) relates only to petition seeking eviction under Section 10(3). The present petition is filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for converting the building for a purpose other than that for which it was rented out and for unauthorised additions and alterations without the consent of the landlord. The grounds mentioned only pertain to eviction on the grounds enumerated under Section 10(2) of the Act. In such circumstances, the plea of the petitioner/tenant that the petition for eviction is not maintainable cannot be accepted and the courts below have rightly held that the petition for eviction is maintainable and the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to try the petition. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the court below.
5. The Revision fails and the same is dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself. Connected C.M.P.No.13841 of 2002 is also dismissed.
Index: yes. 27.09.2002 Internet: yes.
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority,
2.The Rent Control Authority,
(District Munsif), Ootacamund.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.