9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchased the premises for his own use and occupation, namely, for the purpose of shifting his business which he was carrying on in a rented building to the premises in dispute. The landlord filed an application under section 8(3)(a)(ii) of the Act for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises in dispute for his own use and occupation. It is not necessary to give the other allegations made in the application as both the First Munsiff, Bangalore, and the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore, have found that the landlord required the premises for his bona-fide use and occupation, namely, for shifting his business from the rented premises to the premises in dispute. The III Additional District Judge, however, held that under section 8(3)(a)(ii) the landlord was not entitled to possession of the premises in dispute unless and until he was prepared to vacate the shops in which he was trading at the time. This finding of the learned Additional Judge was contrary to the decision of the Mysore High Court in S. G. Narayanappa and Bros. v. A. N. Narasimhiah (1962) M L.J. 76. The landlord then filed a revision petition under section 17 of the Act, and the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of section 7-C or of this section. Sub-section (2) provides the circumstances in which a landlord would be entitled to seek eviction of a tenant in possession. For instance, a landlord is entitled to evict a tenant if the tenant has not tendered or paid the rent due by him in respect of the premises within the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with the landlord on in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; if he has transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire premises or any portion thereof; or used the premises for the purpose other than that for which they were leased; or if the tenant has committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the house; or if the tenant has without the landlord's consent in writing erected on the house or any portion thereof any permanent structure; or if the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct as amounts to nuisance or annoyance to the adjo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dras High Court held in V. Thannappa Chetty v. Arcot Govindaswami Naicker AIR1952Mad553 that the tenant under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Madras Act 15 of 1946) had a right to possession unless and until he was evicted under the provisions of the Madras Act, and, therefore, the landlord would not be entitled to possession of a non-residential building if he was in possession of another non-residential building as a tenant, for in such a case he would be entitled to possession of those premises. The reasoning of Subba Rao, J., then a Judge of the High Court of Madras, was as follows : It will, therefore, be seen that the relationship between the landlord and tenant even in cases in which such relationship terminated under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, continues subject to the provisions of the Act. The rights of the tenants as well as the landlord are defined. The tenant under the Act has a right to possession unless and until he is evicted under the provisions of the Act. Under the provisions of the Act, a landlord will not be entitled to the possession of his non-residential buildings, if he obtains an order for eviction agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinion, with great respect to Subba Rao, J., Ahmed Ali Khan, J., arrived at the correct conclusion. A tenant who can be evicted under the conditions prescribed in section 8(2) of the Act cannot be said, in our view, to be entitled to the possession of the premises of which he is a tenant. No doubt he cannot be evicted till one or more of the conditions prescribed by the section are fulfilled, but it is difficult to equate his right to stay in the premises till he is evicted to an entitlement of the possession of the premises. Section 8(3)(a)(ii) deals with two types of cases; first where the landlord is in occupation of a non-residential building which is owned by him, and secondly, a non-residential building of which he is occupation not as a landlord but otherwise. The object of the Act is to prevent unreasonable evictions of tenants. Can it be said that the Legislature is considering it to be unreasonable for a landlord to shift to his own premises while he is in occupation of tenanted premises over which he has not an absolute right of possession but only a right to remain in possession till one of the conditions in section 8(2) is satisfied, and over one of which he has no con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
