Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 283 (MAD)

Badaru Salma v. D. Santhamurthi

2004-02-25

S.K.KRISHNAN

body2004
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2000 made in R.C.A.No.2 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.3.1999 made in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thiruvarur. 2. The petitioner filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Thiruvarur. The petitioner is the owner of schedule mentioned non-residential tiled old building, which was rented out to the respondent at Rs.150/- per month. From October 1995 the respondent did not pay the rent. Though the petitioner, who has been in the Isles from 1996, has never refused to receive the rent, the respondent created some documents maliciously to circumvent the default in payment of the rent. Since the respondent committed wilful default, he is liable to be evicted from the said building. 3. It is further stated that the petitioner is having a proposal to demolish the existing old tiled building and to put a pucca R.C.C. building and that obtained a license from the Municipal Council, Thiruvarur on 21.3.1997. The petitioner undertakes that she will demolish the existing building within one month from the date of delivery of possession and complete the construction within three months thereafter. The petition building is not exempted under Section 30 of the Act. 4. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller, allowed the petition. The respondent, aggrieved by the same, filed an appeal in R.C.A.No. 2 of 2000 before the Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur, who reversed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the present revision by the petitioner. 5. Though notice was served, none represented the respondent. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The point for consideration is that whether the order dated 20.10.2000 passed by the lower appellate authority is sustainable under law or not. 8. It is seen that the landlord/petitioner before this Court has preferred a petition before the Rent Controller for the relief of eviction of tenant from the demised premises on the ground of wilful default and demolition and reconstruction of demised premises. While disposing the petition, the learned Rent Controller has elaborately discussed the issue of wilful default and finally concluded in favour of the tenant holding that the tenant has not committed any wilful default. 9. While disposing the petition, the learned Rent Controller has elaborately discussed the issue of wilful default and finally concluded in favour of the tenant holding that the tenant has not committed any wilful default. 9. In this connection, the tenant/respondent herein has also adduced satisfactory evidence before the Rent Controller stating that he paid the rent to the landlord without any default. It is an admitted fact that whenever the tenant pays the rent to the landlord, the landlord abruptly refuses to receive the rent from the tenant without any valid reasons which have been elaborately explained by the tenant before the Rent Controller. In such circumstances, the Rent Controller decided the matter in favour of the tenant. However, since the Rent controller was satisfied with the evidence adduced by the landlord with regard to the plea of demolition and reconstruction of the demised premises, he ordered eviction against the tenant. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvarur, who allowed the appeal on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on record, rejecting the plea of demolition and reconstruction of the demised premises, in favour of the tenant. As against that order, the landlord has preferred this revision before this Court. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the landlord/revision petitioner has proved her bonafide intention for demolishing and reconstructing the demised premises, the lower appellate Court failed to appreciate the case of the landlord and came to a wrong conclusion that the landlord has not approached the court with bonafide intention and thereby the lower appellate court rejected the case of the landlord holding that the landlord has not produced the copy of the plan with estimate for the proposed construction of the building and also there was no documentary evidence that the building is hundred years old and that it requires demolition and reconstruction. 12. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in order to establish her bonafide, the landlord produced the plan and also the copy of the permission for construction from the concerned authority. However, the lower appellate Court without appreciating the steps taken by the landlord, which showed her bonafide, it came to a wrong conclusion that the landlord has not approached the Court with bonafide intention. However, the lower appellate Court without appreciating the steps taken by the landlord, which showed her bonafide, it came to a wrong conclusion that the landlord has not approached the Court with bonafide intention. Therefore, the decision taken by the learned lower appellate authority is not sustainable under law and the error committed by the lower appellate authority has to be rectified by this Court by way of allowing this revision petition. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the finding of the lower appellate Court that the intention of the petitioner is only to sell the petition premises to somebody after evicting the respondent and that the said finding is not maintainable in view of Section 16(1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 14. With regard to the selling of demised premises to the brother of P.W.1, the P.W.1 himself has categorically admitted this fact while adducing evidence before the Rent Controller and it is pertinent to refer to the admission of P.W.1, which is as follows, with regard to the proposal to sell the property by the landlord to the brother of P.W.1. 15. In view of the above said contention, it is pertinent to see what the Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, says :- "Tenants to occupy if the building is not demolished : (1) Where an order directing delivery of possession has been passed by the Controller under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 and the work of demolishing any material portion of the building has not been substantially commenced by the landlord within the period of one month in accordance with his undertaking under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 14, the tenant may give the landlord notice of his intention to occupy the building the possession of which he delivered. If within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice, the landlord does not put him in possession of the buildings on the original terms and conditions, the tenant may make an application to the Controller within eight weeks of the date on which he put the landlord in possession of the building. The Controller shall order the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions." 16. The Controller shall order the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions." 16. On the basis of the above categorical admission made by P.W.1 with regard to the selling of demised premises to his brother and in the absence of any documentary evidence that the building requires demolition and reconstruction, the learned lower appellate authority has decided the matter against the landlord. 17. As already discussed above, since the landlord has not approached the Court with bonafide intention for evicting the tenant from the demised premises, the finding of the lower appellate authority cannot be said to be maintainable in view of Section 16(1) of the Act, since the provision of said Section deals with the occupation of the tenant in the event of building is not demolished and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel alone is not sustainable and not the finding of the lower appellate authority. 18. In the light of the discussions held above, it is clearly established that the landlord/revision petitioner has not approached the Court with bonafide intention. In such circumstances, the revision fails and the same has to be dismissed. Further, this Court does not find any valid grounds to interfere with the order of the lower appellate authority. Moreover, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the lower appellate Court. 19. In result, the revision petition is dismissed.