There can be no better proof than admission

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 14th February 2020 

D. Sasikumar v. Soundarajan (Civil appeal no. 7546-47 of 2019)

Facts of the case: 

1. landlord contending to be the owner of the petition schedule premises had filed the petition under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking for an order to direct the tenant to vacate and deliver the peaceful possession of the property to the landlord. The manner in which the landlord had become the owner of the property is based on a partition deed dated 24.02.1997 was referred. The tenant was in occupation of the premises for non−residential purpose on a monthly rental of Rs.600/−. 
2. The landlord contended that the premises is bonafide required by him for setting up a garment shop and requires alterations to be made in that regard, the landlord also intended to demolish the existing structure and put up a construction suitable for his purpose. The tenant had appeared and opposed the said petition by filing his objection statement, denying the entire case of the landlord including his claim to ownership over the property as well as the jural relationship. It was contended that the intention of the landlord is only to secure higher rent and as such the claim cannot be considered as a bonafide requirement.
3. After considering the contentions, the rent control court has issued directions to the tenant to evict the premises within two months. Aggrieved by this decision; tenant come up before the High Court by way of civil revision petition and by allowing said petition High Court held that the holdings of bonafide requirements as claimed by the landlord has not been proved.
4.  It is in the view that landlord being aggrieved by the judgment of High Court preferred this appeal. 

Judgment:

1. In the instant case what is necessary to be taken note is that, the tenant despite being in possession and knowing the ownership of the property and also paying the rent, has sought to urge a contention denying the jural relationship. The said aspect has been taken note by the Rent Controller and taking into consideration the partition deed dated 24.02.1997 and further taking into account the fact that the rent was being paid, has answered the said issue in favour of the landlord. Insofar as the requirement of the premises by the landlord the evidence as tendered has been taken note. In that regard the claim put forth is that the landlord intends to run a garment shop for which the premises is required and he also intends to demolish and reconstruct. It is no doubt true that in an appropriate case when eviction is sought under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, however, in the instant facts it is noticed that the eviction sought is not just for demolition and construction but is also for the bonafide use to set up a garment shop. The landlord, in that direction had also contended that the shop would require alteration and, in that view, he has decided to demolish and reconstruct.
2. It is no doubt true that as observed by the High Court the plan for construction and the financial capacity to construct has not been placed as evidence. However, as already indicated above, the nature of the requirement as stated by the landlord would be for running a garment shop which in any event could be run in the premises as it exists with minor alterations though the desire of the landlord is also to demolish and reconstruct. Therefore, in that circumstance the mere non−production of the approved plan or the documents to indicate financial capacity at this juncture cannot be held fatal in the instant facts. That apart as indicated above, the need of the landlord while being examined has been weighed in the background of the fact that the tenant owns two other premises and no hardship will be caused. Though the High Court has in that regard also recorded that no documentary evidence is placed, the fact of possession of alternate premises has been admitted by the tenant in his cross examination. There can be no better proof than admission.

The Supreme Court come to a conclusion that the bonafide requirements as claimed by the landlord stands established and granted four weeks’ time to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord.