Madrasdated High Court · 2025

C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024Following police intervention, water was temporarily restored, but from July 2012 onwards, the landlord intermittently stopped the supply, severely affecting the tenant’s business and livelihood. The landlord has now completely stopped water supply, causing great hardship. The tenant contends this is a deliberate attempt to force him to vacate the premises. 6. The learned Rent Controller, based on the above pleadings, proceeded to trial. On the side of the landlord, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.5. On the side of the tenant, he examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exhibits R.1 to R.13.7. Upon perusing the available oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller concluded that the conduct of the landlord in not receiving the monthly rent without any valid reason, even when the tenant was willing and ready to pay, created doubts as to his bona fides. The tenant’s contention that the landlord intended only to extract more money was accepted, and the landlord’s claim that the premises were required for additional accommodation was held to be not bona fide. It was also held that the relative hardship caused to the tenant outweighed any comparative hardship that might be caused to the landlord. Holding so, the rent controller dismissed the eviction petition.8.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord filed an 5 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024appeal in R.C.A. No.708 of 2023 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai). The learned Appellate Authority, by judgement dated 19.09.2023, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Controller, directed eviction of the tenant, and granted two months’ time for vacating the premises. 8.2 Aggrieved by the judgement of the Appellate Authority, the tenant filed a revision before this Court, which was numbered as C.R.P. No.144 of 2025. 8.3 Pending the Rent Control Appeal, the tenant had also filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P. No.3 of 2023 under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, seeking permission to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The said application was dismissed on the same day the appeal filed by the landlord was allowed.8.4 That is how both the revision petitions came to be listed before this court for disposal.9. This court has heard Ms.Tany Kapoor, learned counsel for the tenant and Mr.P.Damodaran, learned counsel for the tenant. 10.1 The learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the landlord had not demonstrated 6 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024the necessary ingredients for maintaining a petition for additional accommodation. Exhibits P.1 to P.4 are insufficient to establish any substantial growth in the landlord’s business, nor do they indicate any significant change in income. The notice issued by the landlord does not mention any requirement for additional accommodation.10.2 The learned counsel for the tenant further contended that the Rent Controller rightly appreciated the facts and concluded that the relative hardship to the tenant, in the event of eviction, would be greater than any hardship to the landlord. As rightly observed by the Rent Controller, the landlord appeared to be acting out of greed for enhanced rent, exerting undue pressure, even going to the extent of denying basic amenities and cutting off the water supply. However, the Appellate Authority failed to consider these aspects. 10.3 The learned counsel for the tenant also pointed out that the landlord had converted his pawnbroking business into a textile business under the name and style of "HM Textiles", which constituted a major development affecting the bona fide requirement for eviction. Although the tenant sought permission to adduce evidence in this regard, the Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to conduct any inquiry on the petition for additional evidence and dismissed it summarily while disposing of the main appeal.7 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 202410.4 The learned counsel for the tenant that the Rent Controller had rightly concluded that the landlord had not proved that the comparative hardship to him would outweigh the hardship caused to the tenant. However, the Appellate Authority erroneously held that the landlord had established his requirement for additional accommodation and placed the burden on the tenant to prove relative hardship, thereby reversing the findings of the Rent Controller in a manner not in accordance with law.11.1 Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord contended that the Appellate Authority had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and correctly concluded that the landlord had made out a bona fide requirement for additional accommodation. The landlord has got his license renewed for the period 2023–2026, which is valid till 31.03.2026. It was contended that the landlord was already running his business in the adjacent shop and sought eviction of the tenant solely to expand the said business, which was a legitimate and lawful ground under the Act.11.2 The learned counsel for the landlord pointed out that fact that the landlord had not mentioned "additional accommodation" in the notice would not, by itself, defeat the claim, as the intention behind the notice and the pleadings before the Rent Controller were clear.8 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 202411.3 The learned counsel for the landlord also submitted that the tenant’s allegations regarding denial of basic amenities and exertion of pressure were unsubstantiated and had been rightly disregarded by the Appellate Authority. It was further submitted that the landlord had no other suitable premises for expansion, and the comparative hardship clearly tilted in favour of the landlord, as the tenant could easily secure alternative accommodation in the same locality. In fact, the tenant owns a commercial premises within a one-kilometre radius of the existing tenanted premises, as the learned counsel for the landlord sought to bring to the notice of this Court. 11.4 With regard to the miscellaneous petition under Section 23 of the Rent Control Act, 1960, the counsel submitted that the tenant had ample opportunity during the trial to adduce evidence, and the petition for letting in additional evidence was merely an afterthought, rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, no interference is warranted with the well-reasoned findings of the Appellate Authority.15. This court considered the rival submissions carefully.16. On considering the rival submissions, the points that arise for consideration in these revision petitions are:(1) Whether the landlord's requirement for additional 9 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024accommodation is bona fide? (2) Whether the hardship that might be caused to the tenant would outweigh the advantage to the landlord? Point Nos.1 and 2:17. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant for additional accommodation. To determine the bona fides of the landlord’s requirement, the court must assess whether the claim for additional accommodation is genuine, reasonable, and not a pretext for eviction. The landlord must establish a real, pressing, and bona fide need for the premises for the expansion of his own business. 18. It is an admitted fact that the tenant is operating a gents' beauty parlour in the immediately adjacent premises owned by the landlord. The present eviction petition pertains to the subject premises, which the landlord seeks for additional accommodation. 19. The Rent Control Original Petition came to be dismissed on the ground that there was no bona fide requirement on the part of the landlord in seeking the subject premises for additional accommodation for his own pawnbroking business. However, this finding of the Rent Controller was reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, and an order of eviction was 10 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024passed.20. Pending the Rent Control Appeal, the tenant filed a miscellaneous petition seeking permission to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence, particularly to prove that the landlord’s claim for additional accommodation to expand his pawnbroking business was not genuine. The tenant relied on the landlord’s own admission during cross-examination that a textile business was being run in another shop owned by him. This miscellaneous petition was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, which nevertheless allowed the appeal and directed eviction of the tenant. 21. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the landlord, in his counter, had clearly admitted that a textile business is being carried on in another non-residential premises owned by him. However, without considering this aspect and without affording the tenant an opportunity to demonstrate that the landlord’s requirement for additional accommodation was not genuine, the Appellate Authority dismissed the miscellaneous application. 22. On the other hand, the landlord contends that the additional evidence was sought to be introduced merely to take advantage of the fact that his wife runs a textile business separately, on her own. The said business, according to 11 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024the landlord, was developed by his wife independently to generate income and support the family. The tenant filed the miscellaneous application only in 2023, although the Rent Control proceedings had been pending since 2011 and the appeal since 2013. The application was filed belatedly with the sole intention to defeat the landlord’s legitimate right to repossess the subject premises for expansion of his pawnbroking business. There was no bona fide on the part of the tenant in filing such an application at the appellate stage. 23. According to the landlord, the subject tenanted premises is situated adjacent to the shop where he presently carries on his pawnbroking business, and it would be ideally suited for the proposed expansion.24. Ms.Tanya Kapoor, the learned counsel for the tenant, placing strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mattulal v. Radhe Lal [(1974) 2 SCC 365], submitted that a mere assertion by the landlord that he requires non-residential premises for starting or continuing his business is not decisive, and the court must objectively assess the genuineness and truth of the landlord’s claim. Merely because a landlord asserts that he wants the non-residential accommodation for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business would not, by itself, be sufficient to establish that he genuinely 12 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024requires it or that his requirement is bona fide. The word “required” signifies that a mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough; there must be an element of necessity, and the landlord must demonstrate, the burden being upon him, that he genuinely requires the non-residential accommodation for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business. 25. Next, placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705], it is submitted that the finding on the bona fide requirement of the landlord must be based on a correct application of the statutory provisions. If the court arrives at a finding of 'bona fide requirement' without properly applying the statutory mandate or by misappreciating the evidence, then such a finding would cease to be a mere finding of fact, as the erroneous finding, illegally arrived at, would vitiate the entire judgement. 26. The landlord, as P.W.1 in his evidence, has stated that he requires the subject shop premises for additional accommodation to expand his pawnbroking business, which he carries on in the shop adjacent to the tenanted premises owned by him. Before the Appellate Authority, in the counter filed by him to the miscellaneous petition in M.P. No. 3 of 2023, the landlord produced his license, which is valid through March 2026. This was not disputed by the 13 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024tenant. Similarly, it was also not disputed that the premises where the landlord carries on his pawnbroking business measures hardly 200 square feet. Further, it was admitted by the tenant in his cross-examination that the landlord resides on the ground floor, and adjacent to his shop, another shop owned by the landlord is situated. It was also admitted that there is a passage near the tenanted premises that provides access to the landlord’s residence. The tenant, in his cross-examination, admitted that the tenanted shop and the other shop occupied by the landlord are separated only by a wall, and that if a door is erected in the wall, the two shops could be clubbed together. It was also not disputed by the tenant that the other shop owned by the landlord was sold to tide over financial difficulties faced during the marriage of his daughter. 27. When non-residential premises are contiguous, with one portion being used by the landlord for carrying on his own pawnbroking business and the adjoining portion let out to a tenant, the landlord is lawfully entitled to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement or for additional accommodation. The continuity of the premises and the genuine need for expansion or effective utilization for the landlord’s commercial activity significantly reinforce the legitimacy of such a claim. The tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord to continue his business in the same premises or to expand 14 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024it at some other location situated away from the shop where he is presently carrying on his business. It is the choice and convenience of the landlord to seek additional accommodation. What is required to be examined is whether the landlord’s requirement is bona fide, and whether any hardship that might be caused to the tenant would outweigh the advantage to the landlord.28. In Chinnakannammal K. v. Biharilal S. Lulla [1985 (2) MLJ 346], this court, upon considering the evidence on record, held that the tenant had failed to demonstrate that any serious or substantial hardship would be caused to him if an order of eviction were passed. It was not the case of the tenant that securing alternative accommodation comparable to the existing premises was either impossible or unavailable in the locality. Taking these factors into account, the Court concluded that where the landlord has established the requirement for additional accommodation as bona fide, and where the tenant is unable to show that the hardship caused to him would outweigh the benefit accruing to the landlord, the balance of convenience must tilt in favour of the landlord. The relevant paragraph of the judgement read as follows: “12. The question of relative hardship relevant for consideration in accordance with the proviso to Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act would properly arise only when the application for eviction u/s 10(3)(c) of the Act 15 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024for additional accommodation is held to be maintainable. When such an application is dismissed as not maintainable, the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to render a finding whether the hardship that might be caused to the tenant by granting the application would outweigh the advantage to the landlord (vide Associated Traders v. M.A. Abdul Hameed (1913 – 2 – MLJ – 538 at 544). Despite this, towards the concluding portion of paragraph 9 of its order, the Appellate Authority, while holding that casual visits by relatives cannot be accepted as a sufficient ground for evicting the tenant proceeded to state that in such a case the hardship to the tenant will outweigh the advantage accruing to the landlady. No doubt, in paragraph 7 of the counter, the respondent has generally stated that the hardship caused to him will outweigh the advantage to the petitioner, as he had established his business and the area is also predominantly one meant for the conduct of the automobile business. The evidence of R.W.1 does not establish that any serious, or great hardship would be caused to the respondent by an order for eviction being passed against him. It is not the case of the respondent that accommodation similar to the one now available to him is utterly impossible to be secured. The evidence of 16 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024R.W.1 also does not make out that accommodation similar to the one now with the respondent is not available anywhere in the area in question. All that the respondent has to do is to be on the look-out for other similar accommodation, which has not been stated to be unavailable in the locality. It may be that the respondent may be obliged to pay slightly higher rent. But that cannot be considered to be such a great hardship of a kind on the respondent outweighing the advantage accruing to the petitioner by the passing of the order for eviction justifying the refusal of relief to the petitioner on the ground of relative hardship.13. Thus, on a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held that the Appellate Authority was in error in holding that the application for eviction filed by the petitioner u/s 10(3)(c) of the Act for additional accommodation for residential purposes was not maintainable and that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and further that the relief should be declined to be given to the petitioner on the ground that the hardship to the respondent will outweigh the advantages accruing to the petitioner by granting an order of eviction in her favour. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is 17 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024restored. The. Civil Revision Petition is allowed with costs throughout.”29. In T. Sivasankaran v. H.K.N. Kacharlal Sowcar, (1984) 1 MLJ 155, on a reference by Mr. Justice S. Mohan (as His Lordship then was), a Division Bench of this Court held that A landlord occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, is entitled to apply for eviction of a tenant, if he requires additional accommodation, for his own residential purpose, or for any member of his family, or for the purpose of a business which he or a member of his family is carrying on. The expression “for his own occupation” as found in Section 10(3)(c) of the Act cannot be narrowly construed to mean only the personal need of the landlord himself. That term includes the requirement for family members or for the purpose of a family-run business. 30. The fact that the landlord is carrying on a pawnbroking business in one portion of the premises is not in dispute. Equally, the location and layout of the premises are admitted by both parties. The tenant is conducting his business in the adjoining shop, directly next to the one used by the landlord. If the intervening wall between the two units is removed and a connecting door is erected, the landlord would gain valuable additional space to expand his 18 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024existing business, enhance operational efficiency, and secure pledged jewels in a separate, more secure room. The tenant himself has admitted the nature and location of the landlord’s business. The mere fact that the landlord’s wife is running a separate textile business does not negate the genuineness of the landlord’s own requirement for additional accommodation. The tenant’s belated attempt to introduce additional evidence after the conclusion of trial and that too after a lapse of ten years, was rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority. Such a delayed effort does not, in any manner, diminish or cast doubt upon the bona fide nature of the landlord’s requirement. The landlord has clearly explained in his counter that the textile business is being carried on independently by his wife to meet her own familial commitments, and the same cannot be construed as a substitute for the landlord’s own business requirements. 31. It is pertinent to note that what is material for consideration is the bona fide requirement of the premises for additional accommodation as it existed on the date of filing of the original eviction petition. If the rent control proceedings have been protracted over several years, the tenant cannot be permitted to insist that the landlord must continue the same user pattern or restrain him from selling any of his other properties, irrespective of any 19 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024pressing personal or financial exigencies, such as urgent family needs. The bona fide nature of the requirement must be assessed with reference to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the original petition, and not altered by subsequent developments caused by undue delay in litigation.32. Even assuming, as contended by the tenant, that a textile business was being carried on, such a fact does not in any manner indicate that the landlord had discontinued his pawnbroking business or that there was no longer any need for additional accommodation. The landlord has unequivocally stated that the textile business is an independent venture undertaken by his wife, entirely separate from his own business. The tenant cannot seek to take undue advantage of such developments occurring during the pendency of the eviction proceedings to challenge the bona fide nature of the landlord’s requirement for additional accommodation.33. The tenanted premises is only a small extent and therefore, the tenant cannot contend that it is hard for him to find out such such in the same or nearby vicinity and shift his business. It is no where the case of the tenant that no such non-residential business space is available for him in the same or nearby locality to shift his business. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that no such non-residential buildings could be located to move and set 20 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024up his business, it is not fair on his part to contend that hardship would cause to him in the event he is evicted from the tenanted premises. When the landlord has proved his requirement of the tenanted premises for his additional accommodation to be bona fide, it is for the tenant to locate a suitable premises and accommodate his business at a place convenience to him. In an area like Chennai Metropolitan City, one cannot contend that there was no place available for the accommodation of his business on rent. The tenant has not produced any credible evidence to show that efforts were made to secure suitable alternative accommodation and that such efforts were unsuccessful. In the absence of such material, the plea of hardship raised by the tenant cannot be accepted. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the mere fact that eviction may cause some hardship to the tenant cannot be a ground to reject the landlord’s claim. The comparative hardship clearly outweighs in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. The rent control appellate authority has adverted to the minimum requirements of the provision and has recorded its findings based on evidence. 34. Coming to the revision petition challenging the dismissal of the miscellaneous petition filed for adducing additional oral and documentary evidence to establish that the landlord had converted his pawnbroking business 21 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024into a textile business, it is to be noted that absolutely nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to support such a contention. 35. When the original rent control proceedings were initiated in 2011 and it continued until their disposal in 2013, no such plea was ever raised by the tenant. It was only at the appellate stage, when the unsuccessful landlord filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition, the tenant filed an application seeking permission to lead additional oral and documentary evidence to contend that the landlord was no longer running a pawnbroking business and had, instead, converted it into a textile business.36. In the considered view of this Court, the additional documentary evidence sought to be adduced through the oral testimony of the tenant would not, in any manner, be relevant for deciding the issue in the original rent control proceedings filed for eviction on the ground of the landlord's requirement for additional accommodation. When the tenant himself has admitted that the landlord was running a pawnbroking shop adjacent to the tenanted premises, which is also annexed to the landlord’s residential building, even assuming that a textile business was subsequently set up in addition to the existing pawnbroking business, such a development would have no bearing on 22 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024the decision in the original eviction petition. Therefore, the appellate authority was right in dismissing the miscellaneous petition and this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the learned appellate authority. Thus, the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.145 of 2024 is devoid of merits and the same is liable only to be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel are of no avail to the revision petitioner/tenant.37. Turning to the revision against the order of eviction, this Court finds that the landlord has clearly discharged the burden of proving that his requirement for the premises is genuine, honest, and not a mere desire or whim. The need projected is neither fanciful nor arbitrary but arises out of a bona fide requirement for additional accommodation. Furthermore, the landlord has established that there is no suitable alternative accommodation available either to him or to his family members, thereby strengthening the claim for eviction.38. On the other hand, the tenant, on whom the burden lies to establish that the hardship likely to be caused to him upon eviction would outweigh the advantage to the landlord, has failed to produce any substantial or convincing evidence in this regard. Mere assertions of inconvenience without supporting material are insufficient. In the absence of proof of greater comparative 23 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024hardship, this Court is satisfied that the balance of convenience and comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord.39. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has arrived at a just conclusion by reversing the order of the Rent Controller, which had refused to order the eviction of the tenant. This Court does not find any illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the findings of the Appellate Authority that would warrant interference under its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition in C.R.P. No. 144 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed.In the result, the civil revision petitions in C.R.P.Nos.144 and 145 of 2024 are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP stands closed. Index: yes / no24..07..2025Neutral Citation: yes / nokmkTo1.The VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Chennai.2.The XIII Judge,Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller), Chennai.24 of 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,kmk C.R.P.Nos.144 & 145 of 202424..07..202525 of 25