Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 941 (MAD)

Gomathiammal v. M. Shanmuga Velayutham

1999-09-09

V.KANAGARAJ

body1999
Judgment : 1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 22. 1996 made in RCA No. 21 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Principal Sub Judge, Snvilliputhur, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 5. 1993 made in RCOP No. 9 of 1991 by the Rent Controller and the Court of District Munsif Srivilliputhur. 2. The original petition before the Rent Controller has been filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on ground of demolition and reconstruction of the premises contending thereby (i) that the property which is the subject matter of the tenancy, fell to the share of the landlord in a family partition which is of two items, one bearing door No. 15 comprising of Ambika Rice Mill and the second item bearing door No. 16 c omprising of a house and the adjoining zinc sheet building; (ii) that the said buildings were leased out in favour of the father-in-law of the respondent during his life time on a oral agreement; (iii) that the petitioner’s father Muthiah Chettiar constructed the said rice mill at his own cost; (iv) that it is the respondent, who is the tenant of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 150; (v) that the buildings have become old by 60 years and the walls of the building bearing door No. 16 have been constructed by mud; (vi) that the landlord wants to demolish both the buildings and to reconstruct them for which he had obtained the plan approval from the Municipality; (vii) that he has got the financial stability to reconstruct the building and in fact he has given an undertaking to that effect; (viii) that the petitioner/landlord sent a notice dated 212. 1990 to the respondent in this regard for which he has replied with false averments. Hence, the petition praying to evict the respondent from the premises for the above reasons. .3. 1990 to the respondent in this regard for which he has replied with false averments. Hence, the petition praying to evict the respondent from the premises for the above reasons. .3. In the counter, the respondent would deny (i) that the petition properties fell to the share of the petitioner; (ii) that in the said buildings, there was only a vacant site which along with a thatched hut, the petitioner’s father-in-law took on lease; (iii) that door No. 15 is comprising of rice mill and the residential portion is old door No. 16, (iv) that apart from these two door numbers, even the vacant site available on the Southern and Western side have been leased out; (v) that his father-in-la w constructing a small zinc structure in the vacant site at his own cost, was running the rice mill and enlarged the same in due course; (vi) that never in the past, the petitioner had effected any repairs, but the same has been carried out only by the respondent; (vii) that the cement flooring had also been done by the respondent; (viii) that the petition buildings are in a very good condition and it requires no demolition or reconstruction as falsely averred in the petition; (ix) that the initial rent of Rs. 40 got gradually enhanced to the present rent of Rs. 150; (x) that the petitioner has got many other buildings surrounded by the petition buildings and they are only in a bad condition, which could be demolished and reconstructed by the petitioner; (xi) that in the last six years, the respondent and his predecessors have been effecting the payment of rent promptly; (xii) that on account of personal enmity, the petitioner refused to receive the rent as a result of which the rents are being deposited initiating RCOP. No. 3 of 1991; and (xiii) that there is no proper ground for eviction of the respondent from the buildings, the petition the malafide and hence it has to be dismissed with costs. 4. In the reply counter, the petitioner would deny the version of the respondent that it was Subramaniya Pillai, who constructed the buildings in the petition mentioned property and that it is an admitted fact in para. 12 of the counter that the western wall of the rice mill is in a dilapidated condition. 5. 4. In the reply counter, the petitioner would deny the version of the respondent that it was Subramaniya Pillai, who constructed the buildings in the petition mentioned property and that it is an admitted fact in para. 12 of the counter that the western wall of the rice mill is in a dilapidated condition. 5. The Rent Controller, framing two issues, viz., (i) whether the petition is fit to be allowed and (ii) what relief the petitioner is entitled to?, has ordered a full enquiry into the pleadings in which the petitioner besides examining himself as PW1, would also mark 8 documents as Exs. P1 to P8. On the other hand, the respondent also besides examining herself as RW1, would mark five documents as Exs. R1 to R.5. In the oral evidence adduced by both, they would emphasize and confirm the averments of the petition and counter without any major variation and so far as the documentary evidence filed on the part of the petitioner is concerned, it is the partition deed dated 212. 1959, which is marked as Ex.P1; Ex.P2 is the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by Rajapalayam Municipality dated 6. 1992; Ex.P.3 is the plan approval by the Rajapalayam Municipality, for the construction of a new building dated 28. 1991; Ex.P.4 is the deposit of an amount of Rs. 25, 000 by the petitioner in the Bank of India dated 28. 1991. Ex.P.5 is the deposit o f an amount of Rs. 30, 000 dated 6. 1991 in the said Bank; Ex.P.6 is the Lawyer’s notice issued by the petitioner dated 212. 1990; Ex.P.7 is the reply notice sent to the respondent through his lawyer dated 21. 1991 and Ex.P.8 is the sketch for the construction of the compound wall in the petition premises dated 3. 1967. 6. The documents marked on the part of the respondents are, Ex.R.1 dated 210. 1994 which is the licence issued to Subramaniya Pillai, Ex.R.2 dated 7. 1945 is the electricity receipt for Rs. 106.66 in the name of Subramaniya Pillai; Ex.R.3 dated 11. 1993 is another electricity receipt for Rs. 352 dated 11. 1993; Ex.R.4 dated 11. 1993 is yet another electricity receipt for Rs. 1, 975 in the name of Kailasam and Ex.R.5 dated 2. 1992 is the professional tax receipts for the year 1991-1992. .7. 106.66 in the name of Subramaniya Pillai; Ex.R.3 dated 11. 1993 is another electricity receipt for Rs. 352 dated 11. 1993; Ex.R.4 dated 11. 1993 is yet another electricity receipt for Rs. 1, 975 in the name of Kailasam and Ex.R.5 dated 2. 1992 is the professional tax receipts for the year 1991-1992. .7. With the above evidence placed on record, the Rent Controller having discussed the merits of the case remarking that there is no dispute regarding the tenancy and from the evidence, it comes to be known that the tenancy started 60 years back and the premises fell to the share of the petitioner in the year 1959 in the family partition; that the respondent and his predecessors are the tenants of the buildings for the last 6 years; that the petitioner would contend that the age of the building is over 60 years and the walls have been constructed by unburnt bricks and mud and the buildings are in a highly dilapidated condition and they have to be demolished with immediate effects and that the petitioner has also obtained necessary permission from the Municipality for reconstruction of the building and he has also made arrangements for the expenses for such reconstruction, as it comes to be seen from Ex.P.3. .8. But, on the contrary, it is the case of the respondent that effecting the repairs himself spending from and out of his pocket, the buildings are kept in a good condition and there is no necessity either to demolish the same or to reconstruct the buildings. With these evidence, further contending that it is not the definite case of the respondent that the building is not in a bad condition, but his contentions are that he has effected some repairs every now and then and keeping it occupyable and the minor repairs that are said to have been effected cannot give stability to the main structure and also it is not necessary for a commission to be appointed to assess the stability of the building in all cases. But in para 11 of the counter, the dilapidated condition of the buildings has been admitted by the respondent in the following terms: .“Due to constant flow and stagnation of drainage water, the western wall of the rice mill got badly damaged and developed cracks and when matter was informed to the petitioner, he got wild and far from giving remedy, he became unruly and decided not to receive the rents necessitating the respondent to file a deposit petition in RCOP No. 3 of 1991 which allowed on 211. 1992. 9. Quoting the above recitals from the counter of the respondent, the Rent Controller opining that it is a clear cut admission of the respondent which reveals that the building is in a very bad and dilapidated condition and it required immediate demolition, would order eviction of the respondent allowing the petition of the landlord, granting a time of one month for the respondent to vacate the premises and surrender vacant possession. .10. On appeal, the Appellate Authority and Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, also having his own discussion in full consideration of the grounds of appeal, the order of the lower court in the context of the evidence made available and upon hearing the learned counsel for both and framing one point, viz., whether the respondent requires the petition premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and if so, is the claim bona fide? and discussing the merits of the case in the context of the available evidence and in adherence with the position of law, would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to dismiss the appeal with the costs, thereby confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, further granting a time of two months for evicting the premises, in order to hand over vacant possession to the landlord. 11. It is only aggrieved against both the orders as passed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority as aforementioned, the tenant as revision petitioner, has come forward to file the above revision on certain grounds as raised in the memorandum of grounds of revision. Aggrieved against the orders passed by both the courts below concurrently arriving at the conclusion to order eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant on the application filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act i.e. on ground of demolition and reconstruction of the premises. 12. Aggrieved against the orders passed by both the courts below concurrently arriving at the conclusion to order eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant on the application filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act i.e. on ground of demolition and reconstruction of the premises. 12. It is almost an admitted case by both sides that the petition premises is 60 years old. but as remarked by the Apex Court in many decisions on the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. in so far section 14(1)(b) is concerned, it is not the age of the building that is criteria, but the stability or instability of the same should be paramountly considered. On the part of the landlord, it would be urged that the building has been constructed with unburnt bricks and mud 60 years back and they have given way for cracks at many places of the building and in short, the building is in a highly dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction; that he is well equipped financially to reconstruct the building within the time specified in the Act; that he has also obtained the necessary permission and plan approval for the new building to be constructed in the place of the existing ones and hence, pleads for the eviction of the tenant and to entrust the building with him. .13. On the contrary, the case of the revision petitioner/tenant is that the building is in a good condition and it does not require any demolition and the defects that had occurred in the building had been patched up by him spending from his pocket even though the petitioner did not come forward to do repairs; that the petitioner has got many buildings, which are surrounded by the petition premises and that if he so wants, he could demolish them for being reconstructed thus leaving this petition premises for him to occupy still more and that does not at all answer for an application on ground of demolition of the building to be allowed and would pray for dismissing the application. He would also point out that to ascertain the stability of the building, the Court has not appointed a Commission and only the appointment of a Commission would give an impartial view of the stability of the building on his inspection and report, and would emphasize that the building is still stable and occupyable. 14. But the Rent Controller pointing out in para 11 of the counter filed by the tenant before him as extracted supra, wherein it is a clear cut admission on the part of the tenant that the building has become very weak and dilapidated and against this admission, it does not require any other proof at all and hence pointing out that no other valid evidence need be necessary, nor is it necessary on the part of the Rent Controller to appoint a commission to ascertain the stability or instability of the building, and would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to order eviction of the tenant, in order to facilitate the landlord to demolish and reconstruct the building for which he is ready not only with the necessary permission, but also with the financial stability and such conclusions arrived at by the Rent Controller has been confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 15. The conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in a concurrent manner is based on strong evidence and circumstances and this Court see no reason to interfere with such well considered and well merited orders. The appreciation of evidence both by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are on the expected line and quite satisfactory and no error of law or perversity in approach are found so as to warrant interference by this Court. The tenant does not at all become prejudiced in any manner with the conclusions arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as well so as to warrant interference by this Court. Hence, there is no valid or tangible reason on the part of this Court to interfere with the decisions arrived at by both the authorities below. .16. In result, the above civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. The fair and decretal order dated 22. 1996 made in RCA No. 21 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 5. .16. In result, the above civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. The fair and decretal order dated 22. 1996 made in RCA No. 21 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 5. 1993 made in RCOP No. 9 of 1991 by the Rent Controller and the Court of District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, is upheld and confirmed. 17. However, a time of six months is hereby granted from today for the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate the petition premises and hand over vacant possession with the respondent/landlord. No costs.