CHAPTER x THE TAMIL Napy (LEASE AND RENT co, The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease ang of social Legislation aiming at prevention It is a self- contained and complete ©, tenants. The present enactment Was passed j pe permanent in the year 1973, im the year BUILDINGS NTROL) act, 1960 HISTORY OF THE RENT CONTROL LEG The fesse ee sancting rent Control Legislation Was, then preva conditions during the war period in 1941. The Strain of World Wan ie scale exodus of the working People to the 2 Be accommodation and rack renting were the fa; S, the great demand for + troducing Madras House Rent Control Order 1941. It was introduced as ps House ISLATIONS, urban area: ‘AS Of buildings for Storage accommodation, the Madras Godown Rent Contro| Order 1942 was passed later. These two Control Orders were re-issued in 1945 With certain changes, as The Madras House Rent Control Order 1945 and Madras Non-Residential Buildings Rent Control Order 1945. Subsequently, The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946 was passed and it came into October 1946. The Act of 1946 was originally intended in force f only. Later, this Act was replaced by the Madras Act XXV of 1949 This Act was enacted to remain in force upto 30th September 1951. But by subsequent amendments its life was extended from time to time and ultimately the Present Act, (XVIII of 1960) was passed which itself was declared to be in force for a force on Ist for two years180 the life of this Act wa aheb VOT. tte Saheb 1972 QMS 5 tet fy, iT 3. The Amendment yall . fn 1973 ard 1980. “ens Se been A ent . ql opsect OF THE AC T of this Act says, “an Act to am a and co Oso mble tauns to the regulation of Iet GS of resident ee poet of rents of such buildin sd tha te NOM-Tesidenn tt? % “ts therefrom in the State of Ma Greveation of tal age exrcament are well explained 1 (ran! vs Sate of Maapatiess Ca at 97); the legislation was enacted for achieving i 1962 (ys om station of letting, () the control of rent, ree ML ge able eviction of tenants from resident n is ation is a piece of social reform enacted to capricious and frivolous eviction. This Act is self- Protect the code for all matters dealt with by its provisions. contained a decisions that this beneficial Legislation not only ae evident fron it, there are certain provisions which aa to say Vion in favour oo rights of the tenan ¢ iso. In (Nambiar vs State of Madras 1953 (1) MLJ 49 at 53) a ne Pointay that while the object of the Act was to prevent arbi is took good care to s NFATY €viction of ee that the interests of the landlord: Oy reasonable limits. The landlord is assured of ; Were protectant investment. uring a fair Tetum for fy APPLICABILITY OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT The Rent Control Act is a special i provisions of the Transfer of Prose a aaaiee The estantially modify Rent Control Act will prevail. Provisions or principles cher of: inconsistency, of Property Act cannot be interpreted in deciding se be found in they t ‘Act which in several respects differs from and is i under the Rent of Property Act. The rights and remedies of the ene with the 7 ‘Act are statutory and may prevail over the contract under the Rent ¢ Rent Control and Restriction Acts are in ona the parties eviction of the tenant unless he can satisfy the requi = landlord cannot those Acts. The general law of the landlord fee of the provisions away to the special Acts in that behalf. In fact, it that extent will gj serious encroachment in the field of freedom of Rent Control Acts make of landlord to evict the tenant and t contract. It restricts the }o @ great extent it makes the terms of contract and provisions of the Transfe fer of Property Act no longer applicab and eviction of ten! regu This legis!i ENR AAR 0 nic n « Act is Constitutionally valid ant jhe vrninatory in hature and doce nee offend crit aise td in Humber of , Article 14 oF 19 6 ect inn onda OF the Constitug, tay SALIENT FEATURES, OF TH Tamil Nadu Building ‘ 1, The x ‘ent Control) Act. ial Legislation aiming at Prevention of : pase of soc eee : “Unreasonable eviction of tena 2, The Act is a self contained and complete Code for ai, Matters dealt with by its provisions. HE ACT (Lease and R, 1960, is : The Act consolidates the entire law relating 10 the regulat f ; : 3 f residential and non-residential buildings and contra, of cay cs % pti of unreasonable eviction of tenants. te dificalin of toc At SA with fication oft ey rig the difficulties ofthe tenaae Seong ie mitiga! OPPressive rack Tenting by the % landlords. 5. Sections 10 and 14 to 15 deal with eviction of considerable security of tenure to all the tenants and afford tenants and take ictive power to evict the tenants. away the landlords 6. Section 11(4) of the Act imposes an obligation on the tenant to pay or deposit all the arrears of rent during the penensy ory ings for erick, failure of which result in stopping of all further Proceedings, 7. Sections 23 and 25 of the Act deal with appeal and Tevision which ble an aggrieved party to challenge the Correctness of the order Passed by enal ee the Authorities. be insufficient or inadequate in regard to a particular case. DEFINITIONS i Tamil Nadu terms have been defined under Section 2 of the il io ia and aigiciosn Act, 1960. For the proper et anal provisions of this enactment, it is necessary for us to consider the vari us some of the important definitions here.LAND LAWS OF TAMIL NADU 1. BUILDING = his term is defined under Section? (2) of the Act as follow, means any building or hut or part of a buildin, une efor residential or non-residential purposes 1 OF up be let separately haa And inet, rh tl (a) the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurteng : m mt tg puildsee, hut or part of such building or hut and let oF t0 be joy ny? "ey with a such building or hut, : rmiture supplied by the landlord for use in such buitg, hut, but does not include a room in a hotel ont OF hg boarding (b) any fit orpart of a building or house. From this definition, it is evident that the following are consider, building. A building, hut, part of a building, part of a hut. They “4% ground, out-houses attached to the building or hut or part of buil King Again furniture supplied by the landlord for the use of the building par or part of the building or hut. However, a room in a hotel or boarding house is excluded from thi definition. is A building may be anything which is capable of occupation, |t as any size and there is no limitation as to length, breadth or height, The of ‘The building’ is wider in sense than the house. While deciding the term of building the following factors must be taken into consideration, oe a the nature of the premises, (6) the intention of the parties at the time of gran; the lease, (c) the purpose for which it was leased out. Sranting The word ‘building’ is used here as denoting and descriptive of a structure either of the nature of a house intended for human habitation or for carrying on of a business. In a broad sense, it may take in any erection intended for use and occupation as a habitation or for some purposes of trade or manufacture, but not a mere wall, a fence, a gate or the like. Where the site leased forms an integral part of the buildings, the lease of the site will be governed by the provisions of the Act. However, this Act does not apply to leases of ground on which the tenant puts up the superstructure, with which the landlord has nothing to do.oftenaney is single tory provion oie ofa tracts, one for I 3 is two a provisi ( , Syben he premie ian an wa ae theses PEPOSeS for hing Sery, ‘bg eee together for the purpose of obtain, cl isions of the Act Will cause Prejudice to the tenant (¥, Cees ha Pathar 93 LW 4gq) Wbere the nant oft va is that the two sons of the ccupied gi erent the a clear case that the tenancy is one an it is k vs Damodaran 78 LW SN ‘main tenaments enjoyment,CONTROLLER! section 2(3) of the Act of 1 the Government by Noti ‘he Act are judicial in nature and inted as Rent Controller under Sect Only 28) of ie authority can Be - cement of the Act is s na The date of commence pecificats | ection 4) ot EEE sane the Act is Pace Wy dete Gazette i.¢.30th September 1960. fin 3. LANDLORD : ig defined under Section 2(6) of the Tamil ) Act, 1960 as follows -— ‘amil Nadu p, The term landlord (Lease and Rent Control} “Landlord’ includes the person who is receiving or is the rent of a building whether on his own account or on iy tn fof himself and others or as an agent, trustee, behalf of amoyye receiver or guardian Or who would so receive the rent Prod Adminisirage the rent if the building were let to a tenant.” entitled to Explanation: A tenant who sublets shall be deemed the meaning ofthis Act in relation to a sub-tenant. to bea landiorg The above definition is an inclusive one and does not term ‘landlord’, The definition is comprehensive enough me who are not strictly landlords under the general law. take in p this definition is — + A landlord acc (a person who is receiving the rent ; or (i) a person who is entitled to receive the rent eit P or on behalf of another. either on his own, Aperson who is either realising or is entitled 7 landlord for the purpose of the Act, notwithst. = " ; actual lessor or the owner of the premises. This definition from what is given in the Transfer of Property Act. applications are concerned, it is not the ownership person to file an eviction petition but when eeAND LAWS OF TAMIL NADU In order to fall ot te ent or consent f the lan Uinaceant Pta, ~d ‘although he denied the title of the landlord, AY ang jn in ‘on all along as a tenant L Must be ee \ tenant, continue in possess! = ‘A spouse who is in continuous association in the business ‘ is entitled to the no efits under Section 2(8) of the Act. The di: tenancy can be claimed only by the following categorint OF a stethd, (1) surviving spouse any son, (3) daughter and (4) ove mn Therefore, 8 USNS creditor has no place within the nee eT sOn aco, r The tenancy created by @ mortgagee in As a = moment the mortgage is redeemed and Seas = ioe : ; felationship of landlord n ‘ efinition does not include within its ambit the tenant. This licencees- a Persons claiming to be a tenant must satisfy two conditions ne or she is the surviving SPORES any, sen EE representatives of the deceased tenant; (ii) the above said ghter of the ta have been living with the tenant in the residential buildin, such Person \epay tenants family upto the death of the tenant. In the case o} cman am st he or she should be in continuous association with the Tesident carrying on business upto the death of the tenant and eae for the business thereafter. UES to, albu Purpose Carty on ‘A Statutory tenancy normally arises when a ten: os over and he remains in possession after the expiry or 8 lease contractual tenancy. He has no estate or interest ae the peering a him. He has merely the protection of the statute. Such a to an end either on the surrender of the premises by a eaey Would tenant or if g of eviction is passed against him. With these discussion we can come to the conclusi person may be considered as tenants under this Act, on, that the fo They are — I. Aperson by whom the rent payable ; 2. A person on whose behalf the rent is payable ; 3. A person by whom the rent of an’ i y accommodation would payable but for a contract express or implied : ineLAND LAWS OF TAMIL NADU 190 SCHEDULE-IU ~ RATES OF DEPRECIATION ‘Type of Buildings z Per any —] Buildings built in lime mortar and in which " teak had been used throughout [Buildings built partly of brick fn lime mortar and partly of brick in mud and in which teak has been used. | Building built in brick in mud and in which country wood has been used. Buildings which are interior to those of class 3 with brick-in-mud unplastered walls and mud floors and in which cheap country wood has been used. Explanation : (1) The depreciation shall be calculated for each year on the net val The depreeer deducting the amount of depreciation forthe prvi year. (2) The amount of depreciation shall in no case be less than ten per cent of the cost of construction of the building. (3) The actual depreciation of a building aged ‘n’ years is calculated by n -n 100 where A = total cost of construction of the building, r = rate of depreciation per annum, n = age of the building (i.e) number of years, p = the final depreciated value of the building. The amount of depreciation will be equal to (A-P) subject to @ ‘minimum of ten per cent of ‘A’. The Act has a threefold purpose. One is to regulate the letting of buildings and the other is to control the rent of such buildings. ‘The third is to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants. Sections 3 and 10 of the Act relate to ce enemasJN. BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) Act - 1960 Se : r . ala ng and prevention of unreasonable eviction. Section 4 re ates cading of the Act shows that fair rent is fixed by whee, the an whether he is nt. What fixed is not the fair rent » applies for fixation of fair rent Gat aries the nator the ‘al and company NS Ramachandran 1974 (1) SCC 424 at a Pe ava’ jos of the Act show that they are to take effect n 3 Br t, even during the subsistence of the contract. * mean the fixation of low rent favourable or of the tenant as that would result in the lai afar rent. This has been pointed out in Venkatasw jpros 1962 (1) MLJ 406. for the building and @ contractual tenant of nis rey, tuto “ who ta ilding ). The lotwithstanding any Fixation of fair rent beneficial and to the indlord getting only an vami vs Adbul Rahim & A fixation of fair rent can only take place by means of fig? rocedure provided for it. Fair rent is essentially just rent ers a a circumstances. It is not a rent favourable to the tenant as such. As far as ic Madras Act is concerned, the right to apply for fixation of fair rent is vested it ail landlords and tenants of buildings both during the subsistence of a contractual tenancy and after its determination (Raval & Company vs Ramachandran 1966 (2) MLJ 68). ly VS The words in the Section are plain and have only one meaning namely that a landlord as well as tenant could apply under Section 4 of the Act. The tenant has a right to apply for fixation of fair rent and the mere fact that he agreed to pay the rent at a certain rate from the inception of the tenancy is not a bar to enforce such a right. Whether the contractual tenancy includes a stipulation of rent at a higher figure or otherwise both the landlord and the tenant are entitled, notwithstanding the contract to obtain this fixation, that is just and reasonable rent and hence the provision is neither for landlords nor for tenant, but for both. (Raval & Company vs Ramachandran 1966 2 MLJ 406). A firm is bound to pay rent in respect of the building to the landlord in the same way as it is bound to discharge its debts to others. The firm's name can certainly be utilised for getting the fair rent ascertained under the provisions of the Act though firm was dissolved on that date. TOTAL COST Whether the premises i it is imperative while arriving at consideration the market value o is a residential building or a non-residential building the total cost of the building to take into f that portion of the site on which theTesidential or non The actual area of the Site over which the ‘constructii been . hon to be first determined. From the total area of the site, the area icy 2 Which the building has been put up has to be os or less than 20 Per cent of the area of the site over which the contea been put up such extent of vacant land has to be added on cae. site occupied by the construction and the market value however, the vacant land is in excess of 50 Construction has been put up then the extent to be added to the area of thes occupied by the construction Will be only $0 per cent of that area and no na and the market value of the site will be the market value of that area, Inthe latter case, the vacant land remaining after so adding 50 percent of the are of the site over which the construction has been put up to the atea ofthe si occupied by the construction is treated as an excess Portion and amenities.(Veeman Pillai vs Jindal 94 LW 21) In the case of a building having more than one floor, the principle ought to be one of apportionment in accordance with the number of storeys. Tf thereTN PUEDINOS Geis AND Rew, me 0 oF more st are tw the Market Value of the lang Be Wh thn te EO storey Will be pall ther Bath the umber of strc ae aie 1968 Sadho Proporti, YS in the buildings 2) MLJ 406), | he Hd take into account the ee Satie decide it by number of stairae and th building will be land ae to be fixed. (Banu fair rent is 0 ther vs p Venk ST OF CONSTRUCTION co tion of rates for Classes OF residential ang DOn-tesideny The ae Sahar On Was left to the Rule Makin, Power ‘Torah as well as lated by Section 4(2) was on the basis of ee ae on the present market value Of the by conse by the Rules. pee Fates 3 only provides the Procedure but also the Principles nd method Seaaarea, the fair rent is to be determined, the on rates given in the Mini Technical Handbook 5 - ee Works Department wi Issued by the Tamil Nadu ith regard to the cost Of const ction should be . ile finding fair rent in of any Premises, this must be oe ae installation and sanita> fittings. 1, ; eae Costs have also escalating from knowl 5 i ion 4 of y Ct, Cost of While arene lines De ra is & Tegards internal water cal t by the Public Works ‘Ment. The Publi to the ra ae be treated as confident, a got right to know th e rates fixed by the (4.Emperumanar ys K Raghavaly 101 Lw 568).Nr at cost OF CONSITUCHION OF 4 by ig, : rhe 1H ely, (1) COSt Of the site on whine the nt erste of construction Of the building art S) tee 2) iM Spore of the amenities specified jy Schedun Ta Poh 210% jon forthe fixation of fair rent (A game tMe Vay oy dra thers 1983 (2) MLy 259, Smmar prance sanctioned plan. Failure t9 doce ny! unless the non-production oo ai ; > is expl pe andr Section (3X2) i a matic reas 1 ee nat tBETE cannot be a rze® sich is normally fixed by the Public Works pas te i ; ; re min “a book issued by the Assorinn, iene Fs Asses jon of Tamil Nadu Public Wort, one essing authority arrives at its own figure of stay ng the procedure laid down in the Act, it capital cost 0! a : lord but also the original purchase price of the building. : by substantial alt E developed one made so y b ‘al alterations, additions construction then the fixation of fair rent under the Section may fe ae ‘made on different considerations, where a certain amount was fixed and ‘onnection as well paid for improvements covering installation of electricity as consumption it is a factor that must be taken into consideration Sheds put up by the tenants cannot be taken into consideration while calculating the plinth area. APPORTIONMENT Apportionment or equal distribution of the burden of rent on every portion, is a rule of justice and good sense. If the standard rent of a whole was a specific amount, it stands to reason that the standard rent of a part or sub- division of the whole should not be ordinarily exceed that amount. Therefore, in the circumstance of a given case if the Court feels that for securing the ends of justice and giving effect to the provisions and policy of the Act, it is eeLAND LAWS. OF TAMILISARST ecessary am ae in reasonably MECESSTE irnately do $0. This PriNeiple, however, it can lee" * apportion sic vate that portion of which standard rent ig tg a: where 0 het separately &8 cone unit, but the whole of i dati Motilal nee nails va Goede RET aan ler had to take into consideration the cost of the entire buiigs erties etc, In other words, he had to take the enti Pat consideration for the purpose of fixing sta indard rent of the aioe ee et out to various tenants. That being the position it was heig Pe proceedings were not rendered abortive merely because the Rent ¢, te e standard rent for some of the vacant shops. For the Onto also fixed the appeal, the standard rent fixed for the vacant shops may well be j of the rent fixed for the shops which had been let out so the that will not affect aan ts (Roshantal Mehra vs Iswar Das 1963 (1) SCY 181). In Case of apportionment where the building is occupied by different tenants f and if there is a demise of any land appurtenant to the building “ah vvould be how one party intended to give and how the other party i Teal test take the demise and the subject matter of the demise (H.C.Lodh, to Dr. C. Ranganathan 1989 (1) MLJ 213). peat ve DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF FAIR, RENT The effect of the decision in Hari R.Gore Sastri’s F naa filing an application for fixing fair rent is entitled ne the date of his application under Section 4 of the Act. There is no ae the Act itself directly dealing with the question of landlord being entitled . such fair rent. The fair rent cannot come into operation from a date anterior a the date of application. Although in terms the fourth Section of the . not say as to from which date the (irene fod has 6 Goa an a and generally it is to be from the date of the application. There circumstances justifying the fixation of fair rent from another i. date of application and where there are special circumstances existing a case the date of the order of the District Judge (. ‘Appellate be an appropriate one for commencement i (Miran Devi vs Bi 1977 (3) SCC 496). ‘To198 LAND LAWs oF TAMIL yy, ADY Clause (2) of Section S says, the tenant May oy rent where there is a decrease or diminution in the a, lain 4 i provided with respect to the fair rent already fine Any dispute regarding increase or decrease of faiy P the Controller. SO i a i f Section 5, j According to clause (3) o} ase the py before the date of the commencement of the Tami} Nady nt tg Rent Control) Amendment Act 1973, the landlora or nang he Controller to refix the rent in accordance with Section 4 ore ns, 2. INCREASE OF RENT DUE TO TAXES ETC Act Section 6 of the Act deals with the situation that where the ta payable by the landlord increase, he can claim the excess Pie ‘a addition to the rent payable. Section 6 pro that Where sy) demise of the premises, taxes have increased and such an increage tt Y increase of rent in respect of the building, the Statute comes to the nd landlord and enables him to recover tat excess fom the eng "Se secured by the landlord under Section 6 of the Act Ramachandran 1968 (2) MLJ 50). (Raval and ¢ 3. PAYMENT OF PREMIUM OR ADVANCE Section 7 of the Act declares that the landlord should not Claim oF rep anything in excess of fair rent or agreed rent. Where the Controller has or refixed the fair rent of the building — the landlord shall NOt claim, tg or stipulate for the payment of (i) any premium or other like sum in aq to such fair rent or (ii) anything in excess of such fair rent. However, he entitled to receive or stipulate for one month’s Tent by way of advance In cage the landlord has already received the premium, he Should refund it to the tenant or adjust it in the rent. The term premium is defined under Section 105 of the Transfer of Pro Act. Premium is a lumpsum made outright as price for the lease amount paid by way of advance is to be kept by the landlord to be adjusted or to be refunded to the tenant as ination of tenancy (Venugopal ys Doyal Prasad 1970 (1) MLJ 60). The same Provision will apply even to the cases Where the fair rent of a building has not been So fixed (clause 1) The Consequences of fixation of fair rent are set out in clauses 1 and 2. Sub. Section (3) declares that any contravention shall be null and void.199 gs & 9 of the Tamil Nadu Buildin on tio ndlord’s liability to gi Saal with ae it rent in certain cay 1980 ht ts 18S (Lease a: Ve Feceipt for SES Tespectively, — *dVance ang hho receives any paymen y landlord wil by him for the a Eve? scipt duly signed is by him Mt towards fr, ent OF a, ctual aj dvane, MOuNt of °€ shall Feat OF advance he Teceipt of Tents, the tena Teen oe under the saiq ieee r vs Dhandapani (1) MLJ 169), 7 Provisioy ise nachala oa the procedure step by step. (1) When he refuses ie ‘Section 8 oe. the tenant may request by notice in Writing the landlord tor evades within 10 days from the date of FeCeipt of notice, to deposit ee ify the Bank it is for the landlord to Specify the bank situated within 10Fent duc. (2) ea If he speficies the Bank, then it is duty of the tenant tg City oF Town. the Bank. (4) In case, the landlord does not Specify a Bank the i the then the tenant can remit the rent to the landlord by er ntioned above, ting the money order commission, (5) If the landiora as eee ees remitted by Money Order, the tenant May deposit _ money one the Controller. the rent 1 Act is a piece of social legislation designed to protect The Rent Control lords on frivolous, insufficient or purely technical grounds, tenant from poe ws the eviction of tenant on the ground of non-payment of as the Act allows t ions affords sufficient protection to the tenant against of rent, A deposits the rent in accordance with the provision eviction, ts. Sher Singh 1980 (1) SCC 125 at 130). Narain ‘[Sheo ant it rent in certain cases where the address of the Right of e Bee ee oa known to the tenant, he may deposit the landlord or his authoris the landlord before the Controller in such a manner as rent lawfully pay ee ontinue to deposit any rent which may subsequent yee Petia, of the landlord or his authorised agent become known eee — Section 9(1). i than. contending fused to receive the Tents for more t ae fae sitenen rents in court invoking Section 8. Sie t iy of panini [Hakim and co represented by its Partners rae and others 2001 (1) MLJ 110). vs.(LEASE AND py NT CoN NTROK is of the tenant — ie #20) 1 Mill he is adjudged as a tenan mich ni ove ; and sit ie hit © deposit whatever was tawfilly ae,a vine me “bdul Aziz Khan vs Appachi Gounder 1957 7 7° Guest nin rf LI sy4) 8 is any dispute as to the amount f wrest ther (A) the Controller or the Appar nh © P Paid or rh wo pall ae Authorit deposited ily ted on application macceine mor’ section! 1(3)- on trale by the THE RENT “uRE TO PAY aia intended to make the tenant alert du: ings and conscio ane obligations and Bie sone 3 Se ecdings liance conditional order under Section 1G) wa . Sa il " 4 420). Where a condi es has been passed under Section 11(4) the deposit aciecs of of Section 14(1) is essential even for filing the appeal. Nig / ae without complying with the conditional order is not maintainable. subsequent deposit will not cure the original non liance, sub-section is strictly applicable to the aon ao ler and the Appellate Authority, the principle can be and should be a proceeding in a revision petition also. Order to stop all further gs and for eviction under Section 11(4) is only a consequential order ; of reasons is therefore not a vitiating circumstance. Where fair the tenant ought to pay the fair rent after it was he has paid only at the old agreed rate even after the under Section 11(4) could be passed with reference since the tenant has not paid the balance amount eer 1990 (1) MLJ 85 at 90. Sub-section 5S of to withdraw the amount deposited under sub- e he has to file an application to the Controller or ‘the eviction of tenants. Section 10(1) says ether in execution of a decree or otherwise exceptLAND LAWS oF + ‘AMI t NADY in accordance with the pro. IONS Of the However, where the landlord the Govern, The Section 10 is a lengthy one of Section 10 deal with the eviction of tenants a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant Shou| are from direction in that behalf. If the Controlier after ie, to opportunity of showing cause against the pplication : the is liable to be evicted on any of the IS mentia Sati order directing the tenant to put the landlord jn a Otherwise he will make an order rejecting the applica consists of 8 ci, icy low, "of a Notice to quit is not a Pre-requisite for filin, 5 ; 8 €N eviction Act [Lakshmidas Ved vs. Parag Mawani [2000 2) mry 4s on The grounds specified under this Act to evict 4 tenant ate 1. Wilful default ~ Section 1 21) 2. Sub-letting ~ Section 12 Kiya) 3. Different user ~ Section 102 Vij) 4. Acts of waste — Section 10(2 5. Immoral or Illegal purpose ~ Section 10(2\iy 6. Acts of nuisance ~ Section 10(2),,) 7. Non-occupation of the building — Section 10(2)(yj ) 8. Denial of title ~ Section 10(2\(viiy 9. Personal occupation — Section 10(3)(a) 10. Additional accommodation ~ Section 10(3y(c) 11.Demolition and reconstruction ~ Section 14, On these eleven grounds, a landlord can seek to evict tenant section takes away the unrestrictive power of the i F the lords to €Vict the a The Section is based on public policy. It is Miended t0 protect thy. ve section of the community with a view to ultimately protecting the 4." the community in general by creating quality of bargaining poy, the Section is Purely intended for the Protection of tenants only, the is based on public policy (Agarwal vs State of Uttar Pradesh 472. Section 10 gi i iwp LAWS OF TAMIL NADU: LAND 204 “4 The leg® default nt Control AC wh ger) for evicti was not @ £ eviction. - Natwarlal] (1987 TNL 1 7 vs. Gita Bai) INLI 125 a , In [Laksh u jering eviction on the ground of wilful defauiy, ray a pointed out fall the circumstances should be a ad cumulatie teula feature in isolation to decide wether et \ and not any P’ fault”. Mere agreement of not terminate ¢y¢ wilful or aE and the liability tea ae tenant relations’ .¢ to pay the rent unless are spec; he tem et figs ee sale.(Kuppammal ys Sohne ri MLJ 242). fa to pcp 1 says for ee das wil ithe default bythe ent inthe pay mop ae the issue of 2 months notice by the lord claiming the ee i 7 was a continuous default which is in ai aad in coming to the conclusion that the default a re deliberate—Thangasamy Nadar vs Pappa 1988 (2) MLJ 385, ’ show that the default is not intentional or deliberate is always on its. To arrive at a finding that the tenant is in wilful default, the mere fact tenant is in arrears of rent would not be enough and the ais ‘that th where there has been intentional violation of the clear obligation nS ONSide [Yenkataramaswami Iyer ys Abdul Wahab (1969) MLy 139] Thee ent contemplates an agreement between landlord and as tte for payment of rent. Parties may stipulate for Payment ot reat mae m the month for which rent is payable or during the period of the first 9 end of the month (Venugopal vs Doyal Prasad 1970 (dy MLJ 60) th absence of a specific agreement between landlord and tenant that may be paid on such time as the tenant chooses, The la to pay the rent regularly month after month where fair i the tenant ought to pay the fair rent after it was Rent is lawfully due as soon as the Proper date fi any date is fixed, the tenant is bound to Pay the thereafter. A duty is cast on the tenant to make month if he desires to take advantage of the pro vs Second Judge, Court of Sm in [Vasuvaithiar P vs. R.M. Rerent every mons xx under in case the tenant fails to do 80, he is a teehee “Oring 10 the ce uring the course of (i bsove hone rts re Pa that he is not a wilful defaulter, pecially on ve hi ot aS jive tenant should have been is pons ~~ ™ from ns ; careful to dice smi a rions. Itis the duty of the tenant to pay ane mat 2 S28h though tear oo r a oro as cinonal PaYMEnt Of the cue : = Soe mm the absence of cement ie cae ies tender of rent by cheque Amount to a valid ding c " Tae would have no application Where the rd aa ‘ E ohn tenant that payment by chee Would not in fut, ac oe P fer the tenant must make Payment Only in the CUrrent coin ree pu tater has no right to insist Upon that the landlord shoulg rain and ae a case the Ia issued a notice accept and there was nothing to signify the wa pie ae and the tenant deposited the them, recive the Pa it into the Court was tantamount '0 paymen that the deposi Fa Rai vs Ram Kumar Agarwal 1979 (3) SCC 779, u 5 Rlarreary of rent after the institution of Suit by the tenant does not eee to eviction and the Courts’ power to Pass a decree for eviction, affect er much the tenant has paid the amount Subsequently th, se by him cannot be cured — (Kesavan vs Vj So also the fact that the landlord has i e default incent Pillai 1973 TNLJ.1), wing the committed by the tenant will be taken to be wilful [ose vs Ramathal 1980 (1) C4 418] tenant is duty bound to deposit the rents as and when it becomes due. Any delayed payment can only be construed only as a deposit made at the risk of the tenant. It was held in Hakim and Co represented by its partners vs, Radhakrishnan and others {2000 (1) MLJ 110) that the tenant contending that the landlord refused to Teceive the rents for more than two years, but not taking steps to deposit rents in Court invoking Section 8. He is guilty of wilful default. tender full amount of the rent, Failure on the art of tenant to do so will entail the landlord to refund the money orders. The | omission on the Part of the tenant to pay the full amount of the Tent cannot beaws OF TAMIL NADU Dt AND erence and would undoubted), Me fixed by Court, the tenars tenant is not permitted to Ae ae payable to the landlord, islature by introducing the explanae; ihe liven a helping hand to the tenant nox yn a J if after demand for arrears they fail : : ibed time then it is statutorily cajjey yrescribed time th ied i 1s lutar vs Radhakrishnan ~ 92 LW 77), eae "ther there has been a wilful default prior to the ;.°'° deduct 4, h case found in eae! of notice and where there fier a notice demanding ar aa Aas are satisfied and it from which van vs Panneerselvam 1979 TNL} 1). a : Section 109 of the Transfer of p It is el in plain ie Es subrogated to the lessor/transferor in respect of the rights and lia becomes so transfered [Ramasamy vs Thulaja\992 (1) ML BAY of the Pore et the mere default committed by the tenant will not ; a ee The default should be wilful, intentional or incidental, The a evict 1 of Corporation tax by the tenant, when there is no specific under, ‘ i aris same by the tenant will not constitute wilful default a meaning of the Section 10(2)(1). The order of eviction should not ave passed without finding whether the default was wilful. The Cour Rasta a a definite finding about the tender of the rent by the tenant and ° landlord to accept the same. : Tefusal Once tenant admits default, burden is on him to prove that the default was not wilful [Muneeruddin K.M. and others vs. PM. | (2)|CIC 577) 2, SUB-LETTING The next ground mentioned under Section 10 is st by the tenant without the permission of the landlord, is mentioned under Section 10(2)(ii) a. According be a transfer of right under the lease or sub-letting Portion thereof and (ii) it must be without thethe tenary © Of », Clay, ; Not confer 972 (1) ML3 1 vs Veerasamy | " chowdry Nt Of the Ih ing eviction by the Ja, for seeking. Y Fight to gy. ay s (VS b ndlord. Consery may ided it is in writing. vided Fed PO a XPresseq or is uanble to establish that he had Written, Na seating sab iang oc : while lord ‘ent fi landlord is ENtitled to, Succeed ae TS. Govindarajan and others ro @)CTe 13) ys. LS. ‘ 0 titute sub-letting bya there must bea Wransfer of tn order 10 const by the sub-tenant for a Gefinite Period for Stated rent clusive possess Mohideen 1965 (1) MLJ sn 12). Ina case, tenant "Gupta vs. Syed f the premises by runs HOP While he himselt et a portion of Tt was held 1 t this is a case ramy 1972 () MLy 184), 1 tenant iting institute and the licence Standing case of Sub-letting (WY. Swami vs sha and another 1985 (1) MLJ 53). er 2 that there is an under tenancy and not a mere ©ccupation ing means 3 Sub ater es ne the ‘ ae aa red with the provisions of the Transfer of oe ein 108 (/). Under this Clause the lessee can assign ei Pa a periodic lease or a lease for a fixed term, However, interest whether it ~ heen tah est is available only in it is important eh a Further, the lease is an exception to th ee the Transfer of Property Act. In the Idings(Lease and Rent Control i be claimed merely on the basis ” 1989 2 RCJ 420). So Ee, it “ea — ces st = te before or after the coming into force of prot from eviction.LAND LAWS OF TAMIL Napy ant has merely a personal righ Ba t in the premises occupied or interest in the premises occ : ; ble interest. cofutory tenant, there is no transferable statuto Where a tenant allowed a vegetable a t0 keep in the premises on payment of small fee for cach oe nero ae premises or any portion thereof Tparayy ‘asker, sity a licencee. (Adimoola Nadar vs Ranganathan 1949 a The main criterion is eee ee a a a thig he premises and had desisted himself completely of the weeished part thereof. If so, then he is guilty pas amount to sub-letting. To accommodate a gu temporarily will not constitute sub-letting. In order to evict a tenant on the ground of sub- ing, th of exclusive right to enjoy the demised premises by the tenant in eS ‘a third party and the said right must be in liew of payment of, our of rent. There cannot be sub-letting one fy unless the lessee Parteg Saige Possession. With |, The burden of proving sub- letting is on the landlord evidence is not there circumstantial evidence could be ee €ven if lite, wy indiord to establish independently his plea that the Pee Tt & for sub-let the premises, Fespondent tenant he 3. DIFFERENT USER Section 10(2) (ii) (6) deals with the ground of di of eviction ofa tenant by the landlord, Under ieee User for the Purpoge 'S entitled to order eviction where the tenant had without < Rent Contry of the landlord used the building for a py "pose Written Consen out. If the tenant wants it to be i other than which : fi it was Wnitten consent of the landlord, ea other, Purpose, he must a"4 damage to the building or doing any act which may affect the uti; building. There may be cases in which acts of tenants may add to the the building for sometime but they may cause damage to the building. 4 may be also cases where there might not do any damage to the byjii. utility of the building might be seriously affected. In either tenant should be held to have committed acts of waste section (Shah Jetmull vs GJumnadas & Company 1971 (2) MLy 224) RCI 143], it is mentioned that the changing the nature of the demised ‘antamounts to technical waste and the and shutters, pillars etc. will clearly amount of doing an which utility of the building by putting up a better spc It was held in [Viswanathan A. vs. A. Sarangapani MLJ (Supp, that mere commission of damage by itself wil a , The act of waste complained must b. impair 4 fe to i value and utility building permanently and to a substantial jae _ LAND LAWS OF TAMIL Napy 210 —_— —_— re EP WAS 7 4c mitted by the tenant is ted or caused to be ste com! The acts of be ae Where & rit pores materially, the ee oF utility as one ges! wicted by the landlord ba: ling to Sets Tan > ants making indiscriminate 0 event tenants d objet poset ofthe landlord affecting the vale ca : sae alteration made by the tenant may “i ago its Value. likely req a case in this respect is [Da nics ‘ 1956 Madras 54).] In this case the scope and i al (AIR 195 “qt is not waste if the pee nature " . is reasonable, if it is for a sasonable user and any user 1S : Waste ee saan intended to be used and if the ea ap - arectly proper, having regard to the nature of the ore ; ‘oat knows of it, and in the case of busi Rs " ae : know of only such acts which are : businessmen he might to J ; jmerest of the landlord in so far as the premises are concerned ant {0th and demonstrably lessen the utilitarian value of the building are yo th acts of waste”. Viewed The Legislature has clearly intended to prohibit a tenant wit Becau building The leading Cays) Ut of of the ; In [Sha Nirbhayala Bhahadurmal vs Krishna Rao M Nike (1982) demolition or removal of the doon Il not be a ground of ¢Now let us consider some ilh and his daughter indulged in q indecent language, such conduct under the Section (Janakiram vs | of nuisance if he converts guilty R cep ferocious dogs which a dog or dogs by the tenant meaning of the Section (Go Mere fact that the tenant bi ought A tenant’s systematic d become blocked and ove or exhibition of oneself, ke public morals are instances running hospital or sana vapour, keeping wild animals, (Davy vs Subramania Iyer —19 This Section is comprehe! conduct complained of. against of other portions of the sameec u out pemaple t0 be evicted on that ground. Th, oS ‘an order for eviction can be obtained tet are (i) ae and have in possession’. occupation of the premises for a period of more than ie entirely on the landlord who alleges the same (, i yemiar 1978 (2) MLJ 232). The primary burden section 102) (7) is on the landlord though the meaning ates ey a ation cts Wil SI ‘ial to erasundari Ammal 1989 (1) ae (Puraiappa Nadar vs (Srinivasan y; of proving th. Where the tenant has left his furniture in the i, The Act does not require that the tenant should carry on tl order to prevent eviction. It is sufficient if he Occupies it. ture in the premises is sufficient occupation within the Section (Abdul Rahim Bros vs Selvan Bros 1956 (1) ML3 237 8, DENIAL OF THE TITLE OF THE LANDLORD Yet another ground for “eviction of the tenant is denial of landlord’s title. This is provided under Section 10(2) (vii). There is one more Provision under this Section by the way of proviso to Section 10(1) in this regard, Under Section 10(2) (vii) it must be established that the tenant should have denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy, Further such a denial or claim should be a bonafide. If these things are satisfied, the Controller will pass the order of eviction and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. In case, the Controller is not so satisfied he will make an order rejecting the application. Premises, he is “occupying the business in Keeping his Meaning of the ). The second proviso speaks about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to pass a decree for eviction. This Act does not bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court except to a limited extent, in the second proviso to Section 10(1). The second proviso to Section 10(1) indicates that the landlord shall be entitled to sue and obtain an order of eviction in a Civil Court on any of the grounds mentionedLAND LAWS OF TAMIL Sapp | for evietion made by landlord under 3 When a tnd hoe fae 0) oon a ch tection 14 of the / of Section sion of the bi passes he landlord for demolition and on the intention of t Kk lit When br genuine and not spurious OF suspicious, he om re f eviction under Section 14(1)(b) whether or not the -.ttled he building is such as to require immediate demoli the a dinate ‘condition of the building not being sine ap we 4 eviction 1982 (1) MLJ 94). Under this Section, only factor to be proved by the Ii proved to an order 0} ishing it is that hy it of the building for demolishing it for the purpose of se : The term ‘bona fide’ includes the means of the spe reconstruction of the building and other steps taken ee ae The condition of the building is not a relevant consideration for d of such bona fide (S.5.Misrilal vs The Accommodation 1989 (1) RCJ 121 at 123. Apart from this, the ; consideration of conditions of the building as a relevant factor, Section 14(1)(b) does not state that old and dilapidated t governed by Section 14(1)(6). If the landlord comes tol ourt building is old and dilapidated, he must prove it. The eat snetal waves case (1979 (2) AIR SC 1559) will not apply to all peti Cet. Section 14(1) (6). ae Thus, for ordering eviction on the ground of demoltion and reconstruc the building need not be in imminent danger. The Rent Controller has to ta into account (1) bonafide intention of the landlord far from sole object get rid of tenant (2) age and condition of the building and (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and construct a new building according to the statutory requirement. [Viswanathan .S vs. A. Sarangapani 1999 ML} (Supp.) 364] when the ingredients of the Section are satisfied, the Court Presume that the landlords’ claim is bonafide. It is for the tenant to prove the contrary by letting in rebuttal evidence, [Puttalingam L. vs. L, Sivaling 2001 (1) LW 153]x BUILDINGS _OLBASE AND RENT Contac acre oh! Se the tenant or changing the an nc Putting it in the oor jemlition (Motilal vs Azeem 87 LW Si tog) Pe “MAPS wit ‘go not mean demolition. The demolition ,, "Tr and jon ghe old building and the construction must bem oP" Thirapath vs Maimoon Bibi and others 1983 (ives (oo ® oe iss Y tO a more profitable use is also a factor which le use afte 06) ytting the Putin of the building is not dilapidated (Orr an 4 even though the a sated Publishers 1990 TNLJ 194 at 197). Sons Limited vs respect to the question whether the demolition should With yen in A.A.Henry vs JVK Rao 1971 (2) ML} 297 at eee eee fee fet ee op 2 There can be demolition work in the ground floor even when the first ‘floor is left 5 The demolition can be in a ground floor or in a portion of the fi t fl rneed not be of the entire ground floor or the entire first floor. Fras 4, In such a case the building after the fresh work is finished, would comprise partly of the old building and partly of the new building. 5, The fresh work may be outside in the exterior or inside in the interior. "sf the fresh work undertaken, though in a portion of the building and in the interior is such that the completed work involves demolition and also substantial structural alterations so as to change the identity and give a new look altogether, Section 14 (1)(b) would clearly apply to such a case. 6, The words ‘rebuilding’ ‘reconstruction’ and ‘erecting a new building’ have the same meaning. 7. Erection of a new building may be by the use of brick and mortar or by steel or even by wood work or may be by the use of all the materials. The crucial test is “Is it not erecting a new building or reconstructing oF remodelling”,ASE AND RENT ¢ of CN, BUILDINGS 15 and 16 deal with recog Sections os “Occupation by 4 Bc se ea Sena taper te of r S immediately af, tenant has rei work For this purpose the landlord has to give nor, of pant had tO ACCep vation eae cUPation within thee" the tenane ap! Kise, the Fight t0 re-occupation will come tq 27 end.” Plated time ided under Section 16, if the work o} provided ur s f demo 1S Jr the building has not been substantially Sshing any material : iod of one month in with his u ed 2 the landlord within ress his intention to re-occupy. If the land cert ing, the tenant ae, ad not put him in Controller in this bes the tenant in tenant or be in any way responsible for the amenities being cut Ssioyed by the In the case of contravention of the Provision, the Sub-section 2) of jon 17 says, e tenant in the ccupation. may present an application to the Controller complaining of such contravention. On merits of the petition b the tenant, the Controller will pass an order, for restoration of amenities, The ision has been made in this Act, in order to s The explanation clause mentions what are the Amenities for this purpose. According to the explanation, the expression ‘amenities’, includes supply of water, electricity, passages, staircase, light, lavatories, lifts and conservancy or sanitary services. The leading case with respect to this is [Narayanan vs Appukutty (1955(2) MLJ SN 3D). In this case it is pointed out that an interference with the convenience would interfere with the proper enjoyment of the demised premises ute an infringement under the Section, Further that it must be did so without just or sufficient cause.This Secti Civil Court in executing the a The Section was amended in the year Rent Controller has all the powers of the Civil | passed under the Act. Previously it was P passed by the Rent Controller or an by the specified Court as if it were @ The Rent Controller has power of ex Sections 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Further he c: an appeal under Section 23 and ina R the orders of the Rent Control Court. eviction of tenants and Section 17 is of the amenities. Section 18 gives all the the Rent Controller [7:Sivasankaran vs MLJ 155]. There is no appeal or revision proceedings. Under the new provisions, the Rent. G Rent Controller but the order shall be exec Court. (Ramanujam Naidu vs Panchanatha_— aie "The Act in ‘es under the Ac aa * Kanniammal 1981 (1) MLY 477). Any pers' days from the date of suc ‘Authority having jurisdiction. P ‘Authority may order stay of further proceedings on the appeal. ’ ‘The Appellate Authority shall call for the Controller and after giving the parties an oppor! necessary after making such further inquiry or through the Controller, shall decide the | i Appellate Authority shall be final and shall n question in any Court of Law, except as p Appeal is a continuation of the n Authority would therefore have all the po when he was hearing the petition as original and performs as nearly as possible the same di Rent Controller in the matter of fixing fair en 1959 (1) MLJ 32 at 35), a230) Y 00 onder to tpaintain an appeal, the person an order May » te aggrieved by the order under appa) it" file ay go ip cerest whatsoever in the subject matter of the pr tt® * Petson wn pe proceedings were initiated, he cannot claim to hee the tine the ly because ie acquired certain tials an oe we ong and the order ae made against his preg ibe Pe, party who has consented to an order cannot in uc gon” acne 2 jeved by such an order. nubs SOM aggrie MIring the pe tip endency of nS in tithe deemed to be fanotionaries under the Act are authorities w Ur ons for eviction, the fixation i a _. applications v an of fair rent Looe 0 eure epplicble to Civil Courts cannot be at MOUeh the ai Ts, yet the Rules_of justice, equity and good consent, tox gu! to relieve the difficulties in a statute like the merci aie ed Krishnasamy 1981(1) MLI SN 18). ‘The provisions we ona?P4 Ned ar Code of Civil Procedure was not in Sa micate ended to be x Ae generally pl ost erates Rangonayalaly Chey 19520 ys 445 at 447). pe att: Co peallate Author, \ority Rent Controller and Ap; Baied under the Act are concerned, it is clear that such authorities are Pers: Sona ‘able to Court cannot ith jurisdictioy and ae such ad Limitation Act applic: woked in proc lings before such persona desi Faniammal 1974 TNLJ 380). Where a special aaaecl cal seme ie ‘od of limitation the provisions of the Limitation Act would not a i esan VS Hameed Maraicayar 1956 (1) MLJ 238 at 239). Tee c fi a 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act. On the matter being referred to Division Bench in view of Ss conflicting decisions it was held for the purpose of Sections 3 (5) and 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, the Applleate Authority is a Court and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to an appeal preferred by the petitioner filed before the Appellate Authority under Section 23(1) (b). (Rathinasamy vs Komalavalli 1981 TNLJ 288). ; ‘As we have seen earlier, the appellant must be an aggrieved person by an order, So an order in the interlocutory application refusing to take a preliminary issue of maintainability is not an appellate order as it does not affect the rights of parties (Devadoss vs Velu 1984(1) MLJ 301 at 306, All interlocutory orders passed during the proceedings under the Act cannot be said to be orders coming within the meaning of Section 23(1) (b) of the Act but only orders which affect the rights and liabilities of the parties in the sense that they become final orders though passed on interlocutory application such as refusing to setbe posse Appellate ere order so remanding Tm a4 Court of Small Causes set right ne has no jun 's application Acatoned in the landlord's SEPHAITE rr Judge, Court of Small ee ‘lad an appeal on the ground an appeal represented by A 3. REVISION Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu 1960 deals with High Court's nature. Any person aggrieved apply to the High Court. The re satisfy itself as to : (a) The regularity of suc! (6) The correctness, legality If the High Court satisfies, it or remit the decision or order. 1 one month from the date on ¥ application relates, is communice discretion to allow one more mon section was amended in the year 1s to take away the revisional j order of the Appellate Authority, THE SCOPE OF SECTION 25 The scope of the Proceeding, Tepeatedly held to be wider than th