Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1320 (MAD)

M. Ramachandran v. P. Krishnan

2005-08-10

A.R.RAMALINGAM

body2005
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition against the decretal order dated 6.9.2002 in R.C.A.No.24 of 2001 passed by the appellate authority (Sub Judge), Uthagamandalam confirming the decretal order dated 29.6.2001 in R.C.O.P.No.73 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Uthagamandalam.) Aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Uthagamandalam in R.C.A.24 of 2001 in and by which, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Uthagamandalam in R.C.O.P.No.73 of 1992 under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was confirmed, the revision petitioner/tenant has filed this revision. 2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:- The petition mentioned premises belongs to the landlord viz., P.Krishnan. The revision petitioner viz., Ramachandran is a tenant of the building for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.125/=. The premises is about 80 years old and it has been built with mud and bricks and that it is a common tiled one covered by adjacent tenanted premises also. The premises is lying in the heart of the Ooty Town. Now, the landlord wants to put up new building for the purpose of hotel, etc., after demolishing the entire existing building for the purpose of increasing the source of income from such new construction. The landlord is having sufficient means and also owns Tea Estate and Finance business. The landlord also has obtained necessary approved plan and permission from the Ooty Municipality for the purpose of putting up new construction. He has also given undertaking contemplated under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to demolish and put up new construction within the time that may be allowed. Therefore, the requirement of the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is honest and bona fide and thereby the tenant has to be evicted from the premises for that purpose. 3. Therefore, the requirement of the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is honest and bona fide and thereby the tenant has to be evicted from the premises for that purpose. 3. The revision petitioner/tenant has filed counter before the Rent Controller to the effect that there is no bona fide requirement and the building is not old enough for the purpose of demolition and the petitioner has no sufficient means to put up new construction and that the building cannot be demolished without evicting the tenants of the adjacent premises and that since the tenant refused to pay the enhanced rent of Rs.1500/= per month, the eviction petition has been filed with ulterior motive of evicting the tenant without bona fide and thereby the petition is to be dismissed. 4. The revision petitioner/tenant has raised grounds in this revision petition to the effect that the appellate authority viz., the Sub Judge, Ooty has simply confirmed the eviction order of the Rent Controller without considering and appreciating the materials available in proper perspective such as the age of the building, necessity for demolition, possession of sufficient means, etc., have not been proved satisfactorily by the landlord and thereby the revision has to be allowed. 5. Arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in the light of the material records available were heard in detail. The facts which are undisputed are to the effect that the age of the building is about 50 years and above and the landlord is owning Tea Estate and doing Finance business and that the landlord has obtained approved plan and permission from the Municipality and necessary undertaking also has been given by the landlord as contemplated under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 6. PW1 viz., one Sasidharan, an Engineer has also given evidence to the effect that, on his inspection, he was able to assess the age of the building as 70 years and the construction has been put up with mud and bricks covered by tiles and Ex.C1 viz., the commissioner's report also supports the evidence of PW1 regarding the age of the building, nature of construction, etc. The tenant Ramachandran also has been examined as RW1 and his evidence, as such, does not go to show that the building is in good condition and there is no necessity for demolition and that the petitioner owns Tea Estate and does Finance business. In this context, it is to be specifically indicated that the landlord has required the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction not only on the basis of the age of the building but also for increasing source of income by putting up new construction after demolishing the existing one which is lying in the heart of the Town. So, it cannot be viewed as if such requirement of the landlord should be oblique and mala fide one. 7. On the other hand, the landlord has already obtained necessary approved plan and permission, etc., for the purpose of putting new construction after demolishing the entire existing one. Further, the fact remains that he has also filed eviction petitions against the tenants of the adjacent premises such as R.C.O.P.Nos.65, 70, 71 and 72 of 1992. So, it cannot be contended as if the petition mentioned premises cannot be demolished without evicting the other tenants. More than this nothing can be expected from a landlord to show his bona fide in requiring the building for the purpose of demolition and constructing a new building. Simply because the landlord demanded higher rent of Rs.1500/= per month and even if it is true, it cannot be a ground for suspecting the bona fide of the landlord in requiring the premises for demolition and reconstruction. 8. Therefore, both the courts below have concurrently found that the requirement of the premises by the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is a honest and bona fide one and there is no acceptable contra materials to suspect such bona fide on the side of the tenant. Accordingly, I am of the view that the revision has no merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The revision petitioner/tenant is directed to vacate the petition mentioned premises within one month.