NON­REPORTABLE

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  7546­7547      OF 2019    (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.12365­66 of 2019)

D. Sasi Kumar                .…Appellant(s)

Versus

Soundararajan               ….  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.S. Bopanna,J.          

      Leave granted.      

2.    The appellant herein was the petitioner before the

Principal District Munsif/Rent Controller in the petition

seeking eviction of the respondent therein.   The said

proceedings resulted in an appeal filed by the appellant

herein before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (sub­

Court) which upheld the decision of the Rent Controller.

Against the said concurrent orders the respondent herein

approached the High Court of  Judicature at Madras in

                                                                                                                     Page 1 of 12

the Civil Revision Petition. The High Court reversed the

concurrent decisions, which is assailed by the appellant

herein.  Since the rank assigned to the parties is different

in the various proceedings, for the sake of convenience

and clarity the  appellant  herein  who  was the original

petitioner before the Rent Control Court would be

referred to as the ‘landlord’, while the respondent therein

would be referred to as the ‘tenant’.   

3. The brief facts are that the 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

(‘Act’, 1960’ for short)   seeking for an order to direct the

tenant to vacate and deliver the peaceful possession of

the petition schedule property to the landlord.   The

manner in which the landlord had become the owner of

the property based on a partition deed dated 24.02.1997

was referred.   The tenant was in occupation of the

premises for non­residential purpose on a monthly rental

of Rs.600/­.  The landlord contended that the premises is

                                                                                                                     Page 2 of 12

bonafide required by him for setting up a garment shop

and in that regard had further contended that since the

premises 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.

4. The Rent Control Court on having taken note of the

rival contentions had framed two points for its

consideration.   The entire consideration revolved on the

claim made by the landlord for own use and occupation

as also the alternate premises available to the tenant.  In

order to establish the claim, the landlord examined

himself as PW­1 and marked the documents at Exhibits

P1 to P5.  The tenant, on the other hand, examined three

                                                                                                                     Page 3 of 12

witnesses and relied upon the documents at Exhibits R1

to R9.  The Court of the Rent Controller on analysing the

documents and the evidence of the parties arrived at the

conclusion that the claim as put forth by the landlord is

established and accordingly on allowing the petition had

directed eviction of  the tenant by granting two months

time to vacate.   

5. The tenant claiming to be aggrieved was before the

Appellate Authority in the statutory appeal provided

under Section 23 of the Act, 1960.   The Appellate

Authority having adverted to the contentions has

reappreciated the oral as well as the documentary

evidence.   In that background making detailed reference

to the legal position from the decisions cited before it had

upheld the order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Rent

Control  Court  and had dismissed the  appeal.  Against

such concurrent orders the tenant approached the High

Court in the Civil Revision Petition.  The High Court once

again referring to the evidence and the conclusion

reached by the courts below had differed from the same

                                                                                                                     Page 4 of 12

and accordingly allowed the petition by holding that the

bonafide requirement as claimed by the landlord had not

been proved.  It is in that view the landlord claiming to be

aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal.  

6. Heard Shri R. Balasubramanium, learned senior

counsel appearing for the landlord and Shri R.

Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the tenant and

perused the appeal papers.  

7. At the outset it is to be taken note that the Civil

Revision Petition before the High Court is not to be

considered as in the nature of an appeal.   The scope of

consideration is only to take note as to whether there is

any perversity in the satisfaction recorded by the original

Court, namely, the Rent Controller and in that light as to

whether the  Appellate  Authority  under the  statute has

considered the aspect in the background of the evidence

to arrive at the conclusion to its satisfaction.   The

reappreciation of the evidence in the Civil Revision

Petition to indicate that another view is possible would

not  arise.  To that  extent,  a  perusal  of the impugned

                                                                                                                     Page 5 of 12

order indicates that the High Court in fact has proceeded

as if the entire evidence required reappreciation by it.  In

that background what is necessary to be taken note at

this  juncture  is  as  to whether the Rent Controller  has

considered the matter in its correct perspective by

satisfying himself of the bonafide claim, as required

under Section 10(3)(e) of  the Act, 1960 and the hardship

if any to the tenant as contemplated under the proviso

thereto.

8.  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

                                                                                                                     Page 6 of 12

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,   in proof thereof   the

approved plan for construction and financial capacity to

construct is to be established.   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.   When that be the case even if not

demolished and reconstructed the requirement of the

premises is to run a garment shop even if it be by altering

the premises to that extent.   In that  circumstance the

eviction was also sought under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the

Act, 1960.  

9. Since  the  tenant was running a metal  shop,  the

fact that the premises was suitable for running a garment

                                                                                                                     Page 7 of 12

shop cannot be in dispute.  That apart what is also to be

kept in view is, apart from the bonafide requirement of

the landlord   the consideration relating to   hardship of

the tenant, even if kept in view, in the instant case the

Rent Controller has referred to the cross examination of

the tenant who was examined as RW­1 wherein he has

admitted that he has two buildings as business places in

addition to the business being run in the petition

schedule premises.   Though he states that one floor is

used as a godown and the other is in the name of his

wife, the fact remains that he is running the business in

the other shop for the benefit of  his family.   In that

circumstance when the need of the landlord was weighed

in the background of the fact that the tenant had another

premises wherein he is carrying on the business the Rent

Controller as a statutory authority under the Act was of

the opinion that the evidence available on record would

be  sufficient  and recorded the  satisfaction as  provided

under Section 10(3)(e) of the Act, 1960 and arrived at the

conclusion that the landlord requires the premises for his

bonafide occupation.  Such conclusion while being taken                                                                                                                       Page 8 of 12

note by the Appellate Authority has also received a

similar consideration.  In that light the nature of findings

as recorded by the High Court is not appropriate in the

facts and circumstance of the present case.  

10. 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 non­production 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

                                                                                                                     Page 9 of 12

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.

11. Further the High Court has also erroneously

arrived at the conclusion that the bonafide occupation as

sought should be not only on the date of the petition but

it should continue to be there on the date of final

adjudication of  rights.  Firstly, there  is  no material  on

record to indicate that the need as pleaded at the time of

filing the petition does not subsist at this point.  Even

otherwise  such conclusion cannot  be  reached,  when  it

cannot be lost sight that the very judicial process

consumes a long period and because of the delay in the

process if the benefit is declined it would only encourage

the tenants to protract the litigation so as to defeat the

right.   In the instant case it is noticed that the petition

filed by the landlord is of the year 2004 which was

disposed of by the Rent Controller only in the year 2011.

The appeal was thereafter disposed of by the Appellate

                                                                                                                     Page 10 of 12

Authority in the  year  2013.  The High Court  had itself

taken time to dispose of the Revision Petition,  only  on

06.03.2017.  The entire delay cannot be attributed to the

landlord and deny the relief.  If as on the date of filing the

petition the requirement  subsists  and  it is  proved, the

same would be sufficient irrespective of the time lapse in

the judicial process coming to an end.  This Court in the

case of  Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava, (2001) 2

SCC 604 has held that the landlord should not be

penalised  for the slowness of the  legal  system and the

crucial date for deciding the bonafide requirement of

landlord is the date of application for eviction, which we

hereby reiterate.

12. Therefore, in the present facts the bonafide

requirement as claimed by the landlord stands

established.   The learned counsel  for the tenant as an

alternative submission had sought for sufficient time to

vacate and handover the vacant possession if the tenant

was required to vacate the premises, which also needs to

be addressed in the order.

                                                                                                                     Page 11 of 12

13. In the result the order dated 06.03.2017 passed

by the High Court in CRP (NPD) No. 3754/2013 and MP

No.  1/2013  is set  aside.  The order  dated 19.01.2011

passed by the Principal District Munsif/Rent Controller,

Vellore, Vellore District in Rent Control Original Petition

No.43/2004 is restored.  Taking into consideration  all

aspects, the tenant is granted time till 31.01.2021 to

vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises

to the landlord subject to the undertaking being filed in

four weeks, wherein it be undertaken to voluntarily

vacate and handover possession on or before 31.01.2021,

without creating any third­party rights or damage to the

property.  The rents shall also be paid without default.   

14. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with no order

as to costs.  All pending applications shall stand disposed

of.

……………………….J. (R. BANUMATHI)

……………………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA)

New Delhi, September 23, 2019

                                                                                                                     Page 12 of 12