Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1316 (MAD)

P. Selvaraj v. Vanaja

2005-08-10

A.R.RAMALINGAM

body2005
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition against the decretal order dated 24.10.2000 in R.C.A.No.41 of 1999 passed by the Appellate Authority (Principal District Judge), Pondicherry confirming the order dated 8.4.1999 in H.R.C.O.P.No.114 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry.) After having failed before both the courts below viz., the Appellate Authority, Pondicherry and the Rent Controller, Pondicherry in R.C.A.No.41 of 1999 and H.R.C.O.P.No.114 OF 1997, the revision petitioner/tenant viz., Selvaraj has filed this revision petition. 2. The landlady viz., Vanaja is the owner of the petition mentioned premises and the tenant viz., Selvaraj is occupying the same premises on a monthly rent of Rs.200/=. The landlady required the premises for the purpose of demolishing the existing building and putting up new construction on the site to the need of the modern facilities under section 14(1)(b) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 3. The said petition was resisted by the tenant by contending that the building is not old enough to be demolished and there is no bona fide requirement and there is no means for the landlady to put up new construction and thereby the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. After having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on either side in the light of respective arguments, the Rent Controller has allowed the petition and the appeal before the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry also has been dismissed by the said Judge by confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. 5. Arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent were heard in the light of available material records and judgments of both the courts below in detail. The relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties, quantum of monthly rent as Rs.200/=, that the petition mentioned premises forms part of the main building and its location at an important locality of the Pondicherry Town are admitted facts. The relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties, quantum of monthly rent as Rs.200/=, that the petition mentioned premises forms part of the main building and its location at an important locality of the Pondicherry Town are admitted facts. The petitioner being PW1 and her Engineer being PW2 have categorically given evidence to the effect that the petition mentioned premises forms part of the main building and the main building itself, as such, is an old one with the age of more than 50 years and it has to be entirely demolished and new construction has to be put up with a view of satisfying the modern facilities of the locality and increasing the source of income. It is also the specific evidence of PW1 that she is owning not only the petition mentioned main building but also some more buildings besides the business of her husband as evidenced by Exs.A1 to A3. So, it goes without saying that the landlady viz., the petitioner is having sufficient means to demolish the existing main building and put up new construction to the needs of the modern trend. The fact remains that the landlady has already obtained eviction orders against some more tenants in the main building (in H.R.C.O.P.Nos.115, 113, 112 and 110 of 1997) with the intention of putting up new construction after evicting the remaining tenants also including the revision petitioner/tenant herein. It is also the evidence of PW1 that though she applied for getting approved plan and permission for putting up new construction at the time of filing H.R.C.O.P. against the present revision petitioner, she has subsequently obtained necessary approved plan and permission from the Pondicherry Municipality as evidenced by Exs.A11 and A12. In such circumstances, there is no reason to suspect the honesty and bona fide of the landlady with reference to her requirement for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. 6. On the other hand, the evidence of the revision petitioner/tenant as RW1 does not lead to consider as if there are sufficient and acceptable materials to suspect the honest and bona fide of the landlady in filing the petition for eviction. 6. On the other hand, the evidence of the revision petitioner/tenant as RW1 does not lead to consider as if there are sufficient and acceptable materials to suspect the honest and bona fide of the landlady in filing the petition for eviction. In other words, the revision petitioner/tenant has not furnished acceptable materials to show as if the condition of the building is not in need of demolition and the mere ipse dixit of RW1 cannot stand against the acceptable and reliable evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 followed by documentary evidence marked on behalf of the landlady. 7. Further, both the courts below viz., the appellate authority and the Rent Controller have considered and appreciated the evidence elaborately and come to the conclusion that there is bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction within the meaning of section 14(1)(b) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. So, I am also of the considered view that such concurrent findings of both the courts below cannot be interfered with through this revision petition. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and consequently, it becomes liable to be dismissed. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Time for the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises is one month.