Grounds for Eviction under The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act

TABLE OF CONTENT

INTRODUCTION EVICTION OF TENANTS GROUNDS FOR EVICTION 1. USE OF BUILDING FOR ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL PURPOSE: 2. NON-OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING 3. ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION OTHER GROUNDS CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rend Control) Act, 1960 is a piece of social legislation aiming at prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants. It is a self contained and complete Code of regulation of rights of landlords and tenants. The present enactment was passed in the year 1960 and it was made permanent in the year 1973. The preamble of the Act says, an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the letting of residential and non-residential buildings and the control of rents of such buildings and the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants there from in the State of Madras. The objects of the enactment are well explained in Irani V. State of Madras 1 ; the legislation was enacted for achieving three purposes, (a) the regulation of letting, (b) the control of rent, and (c) the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants from residential and nonresidential buildings. This legislation is a piece of social reform enacted to protect the tenants from capricious and frivolous eviction. It is also pointed out that while the object of the Act was to prevent arbitrary eviction of tenants, it took good care to see that the interests of the landlords were protected within reasonable limits. The landlord is assured of securing a fair return for his investment. The Act also provides for Section 10, 14 and 15 which deal with eviction of tenants and afford considerable security of tenure to all the tenants and take away the landlords unrestrictive power to evict the tenants. The term Landlord is defined under Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as follows:Landlord includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or
1

1962 (1) MLJ SC 92

guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the building were let to a tenant. The term tenant is defined under Section 2(8) of the Act. Tenants means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter or the legal representative of a deceased tenant. (i) who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of his family upto his death or (ii) had been in continuous association with the tenant for the purpose of carrying on the business of the tenant upto his death and continues to carry on such business thereafter and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour.

EVICTION OF TENANTS

Evict literally means expel by legal process. Eviction consists in the physical act of throwing out the tenant form the building which he is occupying. The question of evicting a person in execution of a decree can only mean physically throwing out a person pursuant to a decree already passed directing delivery of possession of the property. The Act did not intend any difference between the words evict and the words direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession. A single eviction petition can be filed in respect of more than one separate portion let out to a tenant if no prejudice is caused to the tenant. Section 10, 14, and 15 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 deal with the eviction of tenants. Section 10(1) says A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of the Section of Sections 14 and 16. However, where the landlord is the Government, this Section has no application.

The Section 10 is a lengthy one consists of 8 clauses. Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 10 deal with the eviction of tenants apart from Section 14. The landlord who seeks to evict his tenant should apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied that the tenant is liable to be evicted on any of the grounds mentioned below, will pass an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Otherwise he will make an order rejecting the application.

GROUNDS FOR EVICTION USE OF BUILDING FOR ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL PURPOSE: Section 10 (2) (iv):- As per this Section 10(2)(iv), if the tenant has been convicted under any law for the time being in force of an offence of using the building or allowing the building to be used for immoral or illegal purpose, he can be evicted from the building by the landlord. For the application of this subsection it must be established that (1) the tenant was convicted under any law for his immoral or illegal act and (2) he used the building or allowed the building to be used for immoral or illegal purpose. Merely because a tenant played cards for stakes in the building in his occupation on a solitary occasion and was convicted under the City Police Act, it is almost fantastic to say that the building has been converted into a gambling den. If the main purpose of the lease continues and in the course of carrying out that purpose the tenant indulged in an isolated illegal act, it would not amount to an use for an illegal

purpose. Much more than a single instance might be necessary for an inference that the purpose of the tenancy has become different.2 NON-OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDING:Section 10(2)(vi) declares that if a tenant fails to occupy the demised premises for more than four months without assigning any bona fide reason, he is liable to be evicted on that ground. The two requirements to be fulfilled before an order for eviction can be obtained by the landlord under this Section are (i) the landlord must establish that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months and (ii) that there was no reasonable cause for the same. The clause applies only to the places other than a hill station. The onus of proving that the tenant was not in occupation of the premises for a period of more than four months continuously is entirely on the landlord who alleges the same. 3 The primary burden of proving the ingredient of Section 10(2)(vi) is on the landlord though the tenant cannot be absolved the responsibilities to adduce the necessary evidence because the facts with regard to his occupation are facts within his special knowledge.4 In abdul rahim bros. v. selvan bros.5 it was held that, where the tenant has left his furniture in the premises, he is occupying it. The Act does not require that the tenant should carry on the business in order to prevent eviction. It is sufficient if he occupies it. Keeping his furniture in the premises is sufficient occupation within the meaning of the section If there is a partial letting and if

it continues for more than four months, the same result in partial letting and if it continues for more than four months, the same result in cessation of occupation under Section 10(2)(vi) follows. Where it was indisputable that the tenant had not only vacated the suit premises but the premises was kept locked and were in
2 3

Rathan Naicker vs. Mani Naicker, 1955 (1) MLJ 2 Srinivasan vs. Ramasamy Chettiar 1978 (2) MLJ 232 4 Duraiappa Nadar vs. Thirupurasundari Ammal 1989 (1) MLJ 89 5 1956 (1) MLJ 237

disuse and the tenant had shifted his business to another premises it was held that eviction must ensure. 6 The onus of proving that the tenant was not in occupation of the premises for a period of more than four months continuously is entirely on the landlord who alleges the same Where the evidence clearly and categoricaaly disclosed that the tenant was in effective possession of the premises in question by not only keeping the articles required in connection with his business there but also carrying on though not regularly his business through his agents, it is held that the tenant was still in occupation of the building.7 Though at first sight, the circumstances that meter card in respect of the premises indicated that the door of the premises had remained locked i.e., for more than four months, it is not improbable that the premises had remained locked only on those days on which the meter reader visited the premises and therefore it is not possible to infer that the premises had been kept locked by the tenant for a continuous period of four months. Mere ceasing to occupy a building for a continuous period of four months is itself not enough to entitle a landlord for an order of eviction. It has in addition to be established that the conduct of the tenant in ceasing to occupy the building to be established that the conduct of the tenant in ceasing to occupy the building is without a reasonable cause. The primary burden of proving the ingredient of Section 10(2)(vi) is on the landlord though the tenant cannot be absolved of the responsibilities to adduce the necessary evidence because the facts with regard to his occupation are facts within his special knowledge.8 In a petition for eviction on the ground of ceasing to occupy, the tenant contended that he sustained injuries in a bus accident and in his absence his mother and sons carried on the business. This was not accepted by the two

6 7

Bhagwati Prasad vs. Prakash Balotia 1981 3 SCC 329 Ghulam Mohammed vs. Pichai Maraicayar, 1981 (1) MLJ 99 8 M.Z.M. Duraiappa Nadar vs. P. Thirupurasundari Ammal, 103 LW 46 SN

lower Courts and the High Court also was not inclined to interfere with the findings of facts.9 Tenant keeps the premise without any use for which it was leased out. Burden is on the tenant to establish reasons for not using it. Merely keeping empty almirahs in the shop will not amount to tenant occupying the premises. Held, tenant liable to be evicted on the ground of ceasing to occupy.10 ADDITIONAL ACCOMMODATION:The ground of additional accommodation for eviction is embodied under Section 10(3)(c). A separate provision is made in the Section 10(3)(c) to cover a case of a landlord who is occupying only a part of residential or non-residential building. In that case he is entitled to evict the tenant occupying the remaining part of the building if he satisfies the authority that he requires additional accommodation for residential or for the purpose of his business.11 There is no compartmentalization in Section 10(3)(c) as in Section 10(3)(a). Addition means in addition to what is existing. This is the reason that the landlord who is using a portion for residential purposes must require the additional accommodation for residential purposes which will constitute addition. Likewise, the reverse is the case for non-residential purposes. Under this Section only requirement is that the landlord should be in the occupation of a portion of the building and the additional accommodation sought for should be bona fide. The requirement of the landlord is to be taken to include the requirements of the members of his family also because each tenement would be a unit and not a part of the unit. It is only where there is a unit of accommodation out of which a part is under the tenancy and the remaining part is in the occupation of the landlord, the provision is attracted.
9

Rathinaswamy vs. S.M.A. Kamal, 1992 TLNJ 218 Habib Mohammed Sultan vs. Nainsukhdas Baldevdas and others, 1999 I MLJ 665 11 Abdul Suban vs. State of Madras, 1959 (2) MLJ 387
10

When a superstructure consists of two or more tenements and each tenement is an independent unit, distinct and separate from the other, the provision would be of no application because each tenement would be a unit and not a part of the unit. It is only where there is a unit of accommodations out of which a part is under the tenancy and the remaining part is in the occupation of the landlord, the provision is attracted.

Decisions which held requirement may be residential, non-residential or both:There is no compartmentalization in Section 10(3)(c) as in Section 10(3)(a) and the language of the Section 10(3)(c) is general and it states that the application of the landlord under the provision will be notwithstanding contained in clause (a). Therefore it cannot be held that the landlord cannot obtain vacant possession of a portion on the ground of requirement of additional accommodation, if that portion was being used by the tenant for non-residential purposes.12 In construing the words landlord and if he requires in Section 10(3)(c), the courts have understood the words if he requires in the same liberal sense as the words his own occupation employed in clause 10(3)(c)(i) of that Section.13 A separate provision is made in the Section 10(3)(c) to cover a case of a landlord who is occupying only a part of residential or non-residential building. In that case he is entitled to evict the tenant occupying the remaining part of the building if he satisfies the authority that he requires additional accommodation for residential or non-residential.14 The buildings in this clause would take in the entire building that is in the occupation of the landlord as well as the tenant and when the landlord wants additional accommodation, he may

12 13

Rangaswami vs. Jayaraj, 1978 TLNJ 9. Vasavambal vs. Chennaiappa 1980 (1) MLJ 207 14 Abdul vs. State of Madras, 1959 (2) MLJ 387

either need it for residential or non-residential purposes as long as it is the same building.15 It is not disputed that it is open to the landlord to seek additional accommodation either for residential or non-residential purposes and it is certainly open to the petitioner to recover the possession of the premises in the occupation of the tenant on the ground that she requires additional accommodation for the purposes aforesaid. 16 The purpose behind the section also appears to be obvious. In the case of additional accommodation, the landlord is given a little more indulgence. Restrictions placed on the landlord in getting an order of eviction under Section 10(3)(a) of the Act are not applicable to a case of the landlord requiring additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c). So long as the conditions in Section 10(3)(c) are satisfied the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant whether he is occupying the premises for residential or non-residnetial purposes. The wording is wide enough to enable the landlord to apply, if he wants additional accommodation, either for one of the purposes or for both the purposes, residential or non-residential. 17 The restrictions placed on landlord in getting an order of eviction under Section 10(3)(c), Clause (c) which applied to portion of a building does not appear to contain any such limitation. If a landlord occupies portion of building and uses part of that portion as his residence and rent for business purposes and if he wants further accommodation in the same building, and on that ground seeks to evict a tenant, the tenant cannot insist the landlord should continue to use as a residence that part which he himself was using as a residence. If the landlord can satisfy the condition that he wants further accommodation in the same building and obtains an order of eviction, it would be open to him to readjust the additional accommodation that he has obtained in the manner he considers most convenient to himself. 18 The court was inclined to hold that there may have
15 16

Saraswathi vs. P.C.R. Charities, 1972 (2) MLJ 515 Sureka vs. The United Bank of India, 93 LW 284 17 Ahmed Thambi Maricayar vs. Ravathi Stores, 1976 (1) MLJ 307 18 Motichand vs. Hammed Sultan, 71 LW 352

been more than one business or it may be that the landlord might be doing no business, in the part of the building which he is occupying, i.e., it might be used for residential purposes. In either case if he needs the portion in the possession of a tenant for the purpose of his business, it will be additional accommodation.19 The purpose of his sub-section would be that if the landlord is in occupation of apportion of a residential or non-residential building he would be entitled to the other portion and there is no warrant in the section restricting his right to activities which are commercial in nature. 20 The expression as the case may be occurring in the section has only one meaning that is the requirement of additional accommodation may be for residential or for non-residential purpose.21 Section 10(3)(c) would apply only in case where the landlord is occupying a bilding which is his own. Under Section 10(3)(c) the expression notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) is very significant . The intention of the legislature is that a landlord can claim possession of building which is in the occupation of a tenant, if he requires it for his own occupation either for his residential or non-residential purposes depending on the nature of the building. As a sort of exception to the rule, Section 10(3)(c) of the Actis included in the Act. Under Section 10(3)(c) an exception is carved out in cases where the landlord is occupying a portion of the building which is also occupied by the tenant in another portion. If the tenant is occupying a portion of the building for one purpose and if the landlord who is occupying another portion of the same building for another purpose, yet the landlord can seek additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) irrespective of the purpose for which the

19 20

Veerappa Naidu vs. Gopalan, 1961 (1) MLJ 233 Vairamani Ammal vs. Kannapa, 1970 (2) MLJ 689 21 1972 (1) MLJ 477

tenant is occupying his portion of the building. The nature of the building occupied by the tenant is irrelevant.22 A landlord who is occupying only a part of a residential building, may, nothwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant occupying the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purpose or for purpose of business which he is carrying on, as the case may be. A landlord who is occupying only a part of a non-residential building, may, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or part of the remaing part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential or for purpose of business which he is carrying on, as the case may be. If clause (c) is construed in this manner, there can be no scope for a contention that a landlord can seek additional accommodation for residence only if the building is residential one and likewise he can seek additional accommodation for business purposes only if the building is a non-residential one.23 Decisions holding that same portion should be required for same purpose:Addition means in addition to what is existing. This the reason that the landlord who is using a portion for residential purposes must require the additional accommodation for residential purposes which will constitute addition. Likewise the reverse is the case for non-residential purposes. 24 Under the section the only requirement is that the landlord should be in occupation of a portion of the building and the additional accommodation sought for should be bonafide. Whatever meaning is attributed to the word

22 23

1994 TLNJ 223 Sri Balaganesan Metals vs. M.N. Shanmugam Chetty, AIR 1987 SC 1668 24 Davey and songs vs. Liberty Dry Cleaners, 1980 (1) MLJ 284

building occurring in Section 10(3)(c), the first thing before the section could be invoked that has to be ascertained is whether the building is a residential building or a non-residential building. If it is a residential building the landlord can obtain additional accommodation only for purpose of his residence. If it is a non-residential building the landlord can obtain additional accommodation only for the purpose of his business which he is carrying on.25 The presence of the expression as the case may be towards the end of the section 10(3)(c) makes it absolutely clear that the two purposes preceding the expression, namely, for residential purposes or for purposes of business which he is carrying on are respectively relatable to the residential building and the non-residential

building occurring in the opening of the provision and the significance of this expression cannot be ignored. Section 10(3)(c) is intended to apply to a person who seek additional accommodation for his own purposes. Even if the word person appearing in Section 10(3)(c) can be equated to an artificial or legal person like a partnership, the additional accommodation asked for that partnership should be for its own purpose and for its benefit and not for a different entity which is distinct in the eye of law and which has functions separate from those of the firm asking for such additional accommodation.26 Where a landlord who is in occupation of a portion of the building and using that portion as his residence seek the eviction of the tenant who is using the remaining portion for non-residential purposes, it is held that he must establish that additional accommodation is required for the remaining portion or any portion of the building for residential purpose, albeit it being used as nonresidnetial by the tenant. Equally if the landlord is carrying on a business in a portion of the building and is occupying it as non-residential he must seek to establish that the additional accommodation is required for non-residential purpose.
25 26

Thirupathi Ndar vs. Kantha Rao, 1980 TLNJ 145 R.J. Mehta vs. Prottam Singh, 1979 (2) MLJ 19

In Kanniammal vs. Chellaram,27 landlady is in occupation of a portion of the building for her residence. The tenant is in occupation of another portion for non-residential use. The landlady requiring the portion for her son for nonresidential use filing a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) maintainable. Landlady need not seek eviction under Section 10(3)(c). The need for additional accommodation is for extending the user of the building by the landlord to the leased portion for the same purpose for which the portion not leased out is being used. Should be part of the same building:Where the building bears the same Municipal survey number and which is surrounded by compound wall, the petition for additional accommodation is maintainable.28 In a case where the landlord asks for additional accommodation in a building consisting of eight shops, where only a partition wall separates them, the shops are portions of one and the same building.29 The context clearly indicates that the word building is used there to denote a unit of which the accommodation under tenancy constitutes a part and the remaining part is in the occupation of the landlord for residential purposes. The accommodation under tenancy and the accommodation in the occupation of the landlord go to make up the building.30 As buildings in possession of the tenant and landlord are separate and distinct, petition under Section 10(3)(c) not maintainable. Merely because buildings are separately by a wall and having separate entrances will not establish the two buildings are separate and distinct. How the buildings were used and the shop in occupation of the tenant was altered should be taken into consideration. Crucial question is as to whether the premises in occupation of the tenant is part and
27 28

AIR 2002 SCC 1739 Lakshmi Ammal vs. Venugopal, 1972 TLNJ 639 29 Shivaji Rao vs. Bhujango Rao, 1974 TLNJ 183 30 Mohammed Shafi vs. Additional District Sessions Judge, 1977 (2) SCC 231

parcel of the premises in the occupation of the landlord. It would depend on the structural unity of the building.31 Landlords requirement for members of his family:In a case of eviction on the ground of additional accommodation, the requirement of the members of the family is also personal to the landlord and a petition for eviction is maintainable on the ground that the premises is required for a member of the family.32 OTHER GROUNDS The other grounds specified under the Act to evict a tenant are: 1. Wilful default 2. Sub-letting 3. Different user 4. Acts of waste 5. Acts of nuisance 6. Denial of title 7. Personal occupation - Section 10(2)(1) - Section 10(2)(ii)(a) - Section 10(2)(ii)(b) - Section 10(2)(iii) - Section 10(2)(v) - Section 10(2)(vii) - Section 10(3)(a)

8. Demolition and reconstruction - Section 14

CONCLUSION On these grounds, a landlord can seek to evict a tenant. This takes away the unrestrictive power of the landlords to evict the tenants. Section 10 which provides the grounds for eviction is based on public policy. It is intended to protect the weaker section of the community with a view to ultimately protecting the interests of the community in general by creating equality of
31 32

Ranganathan vs. Sankaralingam 2003 (1) LW 236 Alagaraswamy vs. S.N. Ramamoorthy, 1998 (1) LW 65

bargaining power. Although the Section is purely intended for the protection of tenants only, the protection is based on public policy. Section 10 gives considerable security to all occupiers of buildings and restricts the rights of landlord to recover possession of their buildings. it is well settled law that where Rent Restriction Acts are in operation, a landlord cannot obtain eviction of tenant unless he satisfy the requirements of the provisions of the Act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. 2.
Prof. A. Chandrasekarans Land Laws of Tamil Nadu, 2nd Edition, August 2010. V.N. Krishnamurthys The Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960.

3. www.legalservicesindia.com 4. www.indiajuris.com