1988 (3) TMI 449 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a landlord seeking eviction u/s 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, must prove bona fide requirement.
2. Interpretation of the term "claim" in section 10(3)(e) of the Act.
3. Correctness of previous High Court decisions on the matter.

Summary:

1. Bona Fide Requirement u/s 10(3)(a)(iii):
The primary issue was whether a landlord must establish bona fide requirement when seeking eviction under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Supreme Court held that a landlord must indeed prove that his requirement is bona fide. The Court emphasized that the Act aims to prevent unreasonable evictions and thus, the landlord's need must be genuine and not merely a desire.

2. Interpretation of "Claim" in Section 10(3)(e):
Section 10(3)(e) of the Act states that the Controller must be satisfied that the landlord's "claim" is bona fide. The Court interpreted "claim" to mean the landlord's requirement or deservedness. This implies that the landlord must establish that he genuinely needs the premises for his own use or for the use of any member of his family.

3. Correctness of Previous High Court Decisions:
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court decisions in M/s. Mahalakshmi Metal Industries v. K. Suseeladevi, M. Abdul Rahman v. S. Sadasivam, and A. Khan Mohammed v. P. Narayanan Nambiar & Others, which had held that bona fide requirement need not be proved under section 10(3)(a)(iii). The Supreme Court clarified that these decisions were incorrect and that the requirement of bona fides is essential.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration in light of the requirement to establish bona fide need. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.