Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 996 (HP)

Som Nath v. Sunil Kumar

2010-07-30

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This is a tenants revision petition under section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the order dated 31.5.2008 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 44-S/14/2007 whereby the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant for convenience sake) by upholding the order dated 2.6.2007 passed by Rent Controller No.3, Shimla in rent case No. 33/2 of 2006. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord for convenience sake) filed the rent application under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for convenience sake) against the tenant. His case, in a nutshell, before the Rent Controller, was that he is the owner of Shop No. 88, Lower Bazar, Shimla. The building is three storeyed. Som Nath was inducted as a tenant in the ground floor in respect of the shop by previous owner of the building for doing work of tailoring. He was carrying tailoring in shop for the last 35 years. The rent payable was Rs. 84/- per month inclusive of the taxes. The landlord has purchased the building from Sh. Puran Chand etc., previous owners, vide registered sale deed dated 15.5.1998 and thereafter tenant started paying rent to the landlord. He has changed use and occupation by closing the work of tailoring and has converted his business by way of sale of articles of daily needs in the shop. The landlord sought eviction of tenant on the ground that shop No. 88, in occupation of tenant, is bonafidely required by him for the purpose of building and rebuilding. According to him, the entire building is in dilapidated condition. It was constructed more than 100 years back and the building has outlived its life. He intended to demolish entire existing structure to rebuild the same in RCC structure. The rebuilding work has to be carried out from the foundation so that the entire structure is construed in RCC. The rebuilding cannot be carried out without the entire building is vacated. The shop in question is on the ground floor and two storeys of the building are in possession of the landlord. The landlord has sufficient funds in his account. The rebuilding cannot be carried out without the entire building is vacated. The shop in question is on the ground floor and two storeys of the building are in possession of the landlord. The landlord has sufficient funds in his account. The landlord has no other premises to carry his business in order to earn livelihood except the present shop in question. The application was resisted by the tenant being not maintainable. On merits, it was contended that the shop in question was in good condition and the landlord has already converted Dhajji walls into RCC structure, therefore, he is misleading the Court by narrating wrong facts. According to him, the landlord was running a shop adjoining to his shop, which is known as "Krishana Mishthan Bhandar". The trial court formulated the following issues on 13.10.2006: 1. "Whether the building in occupation is bonafidely required by the petitioner for the purpose of building or rebuilding, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the demised premises is in dilapidated condition and was constructed more than 100 years back and has outlived its life, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the work of the building and rebuilding of this building cannot be carried without entire building is vacated, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the applicant has no other premises to carry his business and earn his livelihood except the present shop in question, as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether the respondent has not impaired the value and utility of the building, as alleged? OPR 6. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 7. Relief." 3. The Rent Controller allowed the application preferred by the landlord on 2.6.2007. The tenant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2.6.2007 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority vide Rent Appeal No. 44-S/14 of 2007. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 31.5.2008. Hence, the present petition by the tenant. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumar has strenuously argued that the orders passed by both the courts below are not in accordance with law. He then contended that the Appellate Authority has erred in law by dismissing the applications preferred by the tenant under Order 39, Rule 7 read with sections 94 and 151 as well as under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He then contended that the Appellate Authority has erred in law by dismissing the applications preferred by the tenant under Order 39, Rule 7 read with sections 94 and 151 as well as under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He lastly contended that the building was not in a dilapidated condition and the landlord has not made out any grounds for rebuilding of the premises in question. Mr. G.D. Verma has supported the orders passed by both the courts below. He then contended that the applications under Order 39, Rule 7 read with sections 94 and 151 as well as under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has rightly been rejected by the Appellate Authority. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. PW-1 is Bhavesh Chaturvedi. He was posted Junior Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Shimla. He had brought the summoned records and deposed that the landlord has submitted map before the Municipal Corporation and the same was under consideration. PW-2 is Prakash Thakur, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank. He had brought the record and proved Ex.PW-2/A, i.e. statement of account relating to the landlord and his wife Smt. Rajni Aggarwal. He deposed that more than Rs. Seven lakhs are lying deposited in the joint account of the landlord and his wife as on 5.12.2006. PW-3 is Saran Dass. He is retired Executive Engineer from the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. He deposed that he inspected the disputed building and gave report Ex.PW-3/A. He has also prepared map Ex.PW-3/B as well as proved the photographs and the negatives Ex.PW-A-1 to A-22 (later on exhibited as Ex.PW-4/A-1 to A-22). 6. The landlord has appeared as PW-4. He testified that he is owner of the three storeyed building situated in the Lower Bazar Market, Shimla. The building was bought by him from its previous owners. The shop on the ground floor is in possession of the tenant. The first floor and top floor are in his occupation. The rent payable is Rs. 900/- per annum. The building is 100 years old. The walls are Dhajji made of Surkhi Chuna. The condition of the building is not good. The wooden floorings etc. are rotten and as there was seepage, he was forced to lay the cement flooring. The first floor and top floor are in his occupation. The rent payable is Rs. 900/- per annum. The building is 100 years old. The walls are Dhajji made of Surkhi Chuna. The condition of the building is not good. The wooden floorings etc. are rotten and as there was seepage, he was forced to lay the cement flooring. The walls have developed cracks and the building is not fit for human habitation. It is in these circumstances he has kept his first floor vacant. He had requested the tenant to vacate the disputed shop as he intended to reconstruct the entire building. He had put two iron girders to ensure that the building does not give way. He also deposed that the rebuilding/reconstruction work cannot be carried out without the suit shop being vacated. He further deposed that the walls of the building are two feet wide and in case of reconstruction, the same will be erected with the help of bricks and after the completion of the building, the value of the building will increase. He has also referred to report Ex.PW-3/A and map Ex. PW-3/B prepared by Sh. S.S. Dass. According to him, as per the report of the expert, the building has completed its life and needs reconstruction. He has also proved photographs Ex.PW-4/A-1 to A-11. He was cross-examined by the tenant. In his cross-examination, he testified that he has purchased the building in the year 1998 and he has changed floor of the first storey and thereafter put the girders and RCC flooring was laid by him. He also admitted that cement plaster has been done on the outer walls. 7. Tenant has appeared as RW-1. He has deposed that the condition of the building was good and the walls of both the sides are two feet wide each and made of the stones. He has admitted that reconstruction of the building cannot be carried out without being vacated. He denied that the building has out lived its life and utility. RW-2 Inder Mohan has supported the version of RW-1. 8. What emerges from the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties is that the building in question is old and in dilapidated condition. The walls are made of Dhajji and the wooden flooring is rotten. The landlord has given support to the building with girders. RW-2 Inder Mohan has supported the version of RW-1. 8. What emerges from the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties is that the building in question is old and in dilapidated condition. The walls are made of Dhajji and the wooden flooring is rotten. The landlord has given support to the building with girders. It is evident from report Ex.PW-3/A that the building is old and requires reconstruction. The landlord has sufficient funds as per the statement of PW-2 Prakash Thakur, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank. Landlord has also submitted the building plan for reconstruction before the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Tenant has not produced any tangible evidence to establish that the building is not in dilapidated condition and has not out lived its life and utility. The building is situated in commercial area and if the same is reconstructed it will improve its market value. 9. Mr. Ajay Kumar has vehemently argued that the Appellate Authority has erred in law by dismissing application under Order 39, Rule 7 read with section 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby Sh. H.S. Bisht, expert/Engineer has not been allowed an access to the first and second floors of building No.88, Lower Bazar, Shimla and to take photographs inside the building. The tenant has also moved application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to establish that the landlord has already obtained structural stability certificate of the building and has also shown in affidavit that the building was fit for installation of BSNL pole on the roof/top of its building. According to him, deed of indemnity was also executed on 23.5.2007 by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited with Municipal Corporation, Shimla. The purpose of application preferred under Order 39, Rule 7 and Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was to establish that the building is refurbished and is not required to be reconstructed. 10. The requirement of law as per section 14 (3) (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 is that the rented land is required bonafide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re- building or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. 11. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metalware and Company etc. v. Bansilal Sarma and Company etc. 11. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metalware and Company etc. v. Bansilal Sarma and Company etc. (1979) 3 SCC 398 while interpreting section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act , 1960 have held that the Rent Controller is required to take into account all the surrounding circumstances including not merely the factors of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to undertake the project and steps taken by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. Their Lordships have further held that if the building happens to be decrepit or dilapidated it will readily make the bona fide requirement of the landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any means being possessed by the landlord would not be sufficient. Their Lordships have held as under: "6. As stated earlier it cannot be disputed that the phrase used in S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act is 'the building is bona fide required by the landlord' for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction and the same clearly refers to the bona fide requirement of the landlord it is also true that the requirement in terms is not that the building should need immediate demolition and reconstruction. But we fail to appreciate how the state or condition of the building and the extent to which it could stand without immediate demolition and reconstruction in future would be a totally irrelevant factor while determining "the bona fide requirement of the landlord". If the Rent Controller has to be satisfied about the bona fide requirement of the landlord which must mean genuineness of his claim in that behalf the Rent Controller will have to take into account all the surrounding circumstances including not merely the factors of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to under take the project and steps taken by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. All these factors being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Controller on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord under S. 14 (1) (b). All these factors being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Controller on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord under S. 14 (1) (b). In a sense if the building happens to be decrepit or dilapidated it will readily make for the bona fide requirement of the landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any means being possessed by the landlord would not be sufficient. Conversely a landlord being possessed of sufficient means to under take the project of demolition and reconstruction by itself may not be sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement if the building happens to be a very recent construction in a perfectly sound condition and its situation may prevent its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. In any case these latter factors may cast a serious doubt on the landlord's bona fide requirement. It is, therefore, clear to us that the age and condition of the building would certainly be a relevant factor which will have to be taken into account while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord under S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act and the same cannot be ignored. 7. We would like to observe that each side has adopted an extreme stand on the question at issue which is obviously incorrect. On the one hand counsel for the appellant urged that the words 'bona fide required' refer to the condition of the building and not to the honest or bona fide intention entertained by the landlord to undertake demolition and reconstruction, suggesting thereby that the condition of the building should be a decisive factor while counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that that aspect was totally irrelevant and the bona fide requirement of the landlord should be determined on the basis of factors such as the financial capacity of the landlord to undertake the project and whether he had taken any steps in that behalf etc. We do not agree that old age and dilapidated condition of the building is a sine qua non or a decisive factor for eviction under S. 14 (1) (b) nor is it possible to accept the view that the said circumstances in totally irrelevant in pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord. We do not agree that old age and dilapidated condition of the building is a sine qua non or a decisive factor for eviction under S. 14 (1) (b) nor is it possible to accept the view that the said circumstances in totally irrelevant in pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord. We are clearly of the view that the age and existing condition of the building - whether it is a recent construction or very old and whether it is in a good and sound condition or has become decrepit or dilapidated - are relevant factors forming part of 'all the circumstances' that having to be considered while determining the bona fide requirement of the landlord under S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act and in the totality of the circumstances these factors may assume lesser or greater significance depending upon whether in the scheme of the concerned enactment there is or there is not a provision for reinduction of the evicted tenant into the new construction. Such a view would be in accord with the main objective of the benign legislation enacted with the avowed intention of giving protection to the tenant." 12. In P.ORR and sons (P) Limited v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, (1991) 1 SCC 301 , their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant circumstances, requires demolition. Their Lordships have held as under: "30. We accordingly hold that S. 14(l)(b) is satisfied only if the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the "immediate", i.e., direct, sole and timely purpose of demolishing it with a view to erecting a new building on the site of the existing building. Their Lordships have held as under: "30. We accordingly hold that S. 14(l)(b) is satisfied only if the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the "immediate", i.e., direct, sole and timely purpose of demolishing it with a view to erecting a new building on the site of the existing building. Various circumstances such as the capacity of the landlord, the size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authority in considering an application for recovery; but the essential and overriding consideration which, in the general interests of the public and for the protection of the tenants from unreasonable eviction, the legislature has in mind is the condition of the building that demands timely demolition by reason of the extent of damage to its structure making it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs. While the condition of the building by itself may not necessarily establish the bona fide requirement under clause (b), that condition is not only one of the various circumstances which may be taken into account by the Controller, but it is the essential condition in the absence of which it would not be possible for the land-lord to prove that he has a bona fide requirement which is timely, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building. The Act does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant circumstances, requires demolition. These are matters which are to be proved by evidence." 13. It will be apt at this stage to refer to section 14 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act , 1960, which reads thus: "14 (b)- that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished." Section 14 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act , 1960 is not pari materia with section 14 (3) (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Section 14 (3) (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 reads thus: "14 (3) (c)- in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance or the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bonafide by him for carrying out repairs which can not be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building or rented land is required bonafide by him for the purpose of building or re-building or making these to any substantial additions, or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition or alteration can not be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated." 14. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyamlal Agarwal v. Ratanlal Malviya (dead) by LRs, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 449 had the occasion to construe section 12 (1) (h) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Section 12 (1) (h) of the Act permits eviction of tenant from any accommodation on the ground that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making therein any substantial addition or alteration. The language employed in section 12 (1) (h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is more akin to the phraseology employed in section 14 (3) (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Their Lordships after interpreting section 12 (1) (h) have held that the building should be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair or demolition was not a statutory requirement. Their Lordships have further held that there is no statutory requirement that while considering the bona fide need of the landlord for reconstruction of the accommodation the building must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair without demolition. However, their Lordships have held that even in the absence of such a provision dilapidated or otherwise, condition of the building would be one of the relevant circumstance while considering the bona fide of the landlord under section 12 (1) (h) of the Act although that could not be a decisive circumstance in determining the question of bona fide need. Their Lordships have held as under: "3. Their Lordships have held as under: "3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the High Court has failed to record any finding that the shop in dispute was in dilapidated condition or that, it required reconstruction, in the absence of such a finding the landlord' & bona fide need could not be upheld. He placed reliance on a number of decisions but since none of them relate to interpretation of S. 12 (1)(h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions. S. 12 (1)(h) of the Act permits eviction of tenant from any accommodation on the ground that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for there purpose of building or rebuilding or making therein any substantial, addition or alteration. There is no statutory requirement that while, considering the bona fide need of the land-lord for reconstruction of the accommodation the building must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair. or demolition. Unlike other Rent Control Laws the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act does not expressly provide for any such condition. But even in the absence of such a provision dilapidated or otherwise, condition of the building would be one of the relevant circumstance while considering the bona fide need of the landlord under S. 12 (1)(h) of the Act, although that could not be a decisive circumstance in determining the question of bona fide need. Bona fide requirement of the landlord under S. 12 (1)(h) may include many relevant factors i.e. the need of the landlord to put the building for better use to obtain higher income, the condition of the building, shortage of accommodation and necessity of having larger accommodation. the capacity of the landlord to rebuild the accommodation, his financial resources etc. All these factors are relevant for the purposes of determining tile question whether the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding the accommodation." 15. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996) 6 SCC 475 had again the occasion to consider section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996) 6 SCC 475 had again the occasion to consider section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. Their Lordships have culled out the following principles: "For granting permission under Section 14 (1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bonafide or not. For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bonafide, the Rent Controller has to take into account: (1) bonafide intention of the landlord for from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14 (1)(b). NO court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller." The principle laid down in Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996) 6 SCC 475 were explained and reiterated in Amaiyappa Transport v. N.S. Rajulu, (2002) 9 SCC 437 as well. 16. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Venkatesha Gupta and others, (2002) 4 SCC 437 their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down the following parameters under section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: "11. We may refer to two decisions of Madras High Court. In S.Raju and others v. K. Nathamani, 1998 (3) LW 214, the Constitution Bench decision has been followed and it has been held that when new buildings with modern amenities have come up in that locality, naturally the building in question may become unsuitable to the surroundings and a liability, in its present condition, to the landlord. Keeping the building in the same condition will amount to asking the landlord to shoulder the burden for ever. Keeping the building in the same condition will amount to asking the landlord to shoulder the burden for ever. Tenants may be satisfied with the present state of the building since they have to pay only a nominal rent but the Rent Control Legislation, beneficial to the landlord and the tenant both, should be interpreted in that way. For the purpose of proving his bona fides the landlord need only show that he has got the capacity to raise the necessary funds. In A.N. Srinivasa Thevar v. Sundarambal alias Prema W/o. Chandrakumar, 1995 (2) LW 14 , even before the decision by Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh's case was available, it was held in the light of the decision in P. Orr & Sons that the availability of the following factors was sufficient to make out a case of bona fide requirement under Section 14 (1)(b): "(a) Capacity of the landlord to demolish and to reconstruct is undisputed and also proved satisfactorily; (b) The size of the existing building occupies only one third of the site, leaving two third behind vacant and unutilized; (c) Demand for additional space: The demised premises is situated in a busy locality. Therefore, there is a great demand for additional space in the locality which could be met by demolishing the existing small building and putting up a larger building providing for future development vertically also, by building pucca terraced building; (d) The economic advantage: A modern construction of a larger building shall certainly yield better revenue and also appreciate in value, when compared to the asbestos sheet roofed old building." In that case, it was observed that the existing building was an old, out-model asbestos sheet building proposed to be replaced with better and modern building which would provide for better quality accommodation to the needs of the present days as the preservation of such building in a busy locality of a town shall not only be an eyesore but also against the souring public demand for additional space. Viewed from the angle of general interest of the public which, according to the decision in P. Orr & Sons is one of the considerations, it was observed that a big site should yield to a larger modern building with an increased and enlarged accommodation having better facilities to solve the ever increasing demand for more space. Viewed from the angle of general interest of the public which, according to the decision in P. Orr & Sons is one of the considerations, it was observed that a big site should yield to a larger modern building with an increased and enlarged accommodation having better facilities to solve the ever increasing demand for more space. Stalling growth and development for the sake of one tenant who is in occupation of an old model building constructed with mud and mortar and asbestos sheets occupying only one third of the site was held to be not conducive to public interest. We approve the statement of law and the approach adopted by Madras High Court in both the above said decisions. The structural and physical features and the nature of the construction of the building cannot be ignored. Even in P. Orr & Sons, this Court was of opinion that various circumstances, such as the capacity of the landlord, size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors, justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authorities, while considering the requirement for reconstruction of the building as the essential and overriding consideration in the general interest of the public and for the protection of the tenant from unreasonable eviction." 17. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagat pal Dhawan v. Kahan Singh (dead) by LRs and others, (2003) 1 SCC 191 had the occasion to interpret clause (c) of sub section (3) of section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1987. Their Lordships have held that while trying eviction petition on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, Court may look into the age and condition of building, availability of necessary funds, and whether building plans have been sanctioned by local authority in order to assess landlords bona fides, even if the statute concerned has not specifically made them ingredients of the ground for eviction. Their Lordships have further held that eviction should be allowed where no material is placed on record to show that landlords real intention is only to evict the tenant rather than to raise new construction. Their Lordships have further held that eviction should be allowed where no material is placed on record to show that landlords real intention is only to evict the tenant rather than to raise new construction. In this case also the building was located in a busy commercial locality, landlord had received sanction for his building plans, had sufficient funds and wished to demolish the 100 year old suit building to construct a more spacious three storey structure. Their Lordships have further held that if statutory provision is silent on the subject, bona fide, cannot be doubted solely on ground that building concerned is not in danger of collapse, though old and outdated. Their Lordships have held as under: "6. Section 14 (3) (c) provides inter alia that a landlord may apply to the controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of tenancy premises in case of any building or rented land being required bona fide by him for the purpose of building or rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. The provision does not have as an essential ingredient thereof and as a relevant factor the age and condition of the building. The provision also does not lay down that the availability of requisite funds and availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authority must be proved by the landlord as an ingredient of the provision or as a condition precedent to his entitlement to eviction of tenant. However still, suffice it to observe, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case, the court may look into such facts as relevant, though not specifically mentioned as ingredient of the ground for eviction, for the purpose of determining the bona fides of the landlord. If a building, as proposed, cannot be constructed or if the landlord does not have means for carrying out the construction or reconstruction obviously his requirement would remain a mere wish and would not be bona fide. 10. The locality where the premises are situated has, with the lapse of time, become a busy commercial locality. The structure of the building is more than 100 years old. It is in mud mortar and with slates' roofing. 10. The locality where the premises are situated has, with the lapse of time, become a busy commercial locality. The structure of the building is more than 100 years old. It is in mud mortar and with slates' roofing. Instead of outdated two floor space, the landlord proposes to construct a modern three-storeyed building which would obviously provide additional space and much better return to the landlord. The landlord has stated that he had no other residential house of his own available with him and having reconstructed the building he would like to shift his residence too in his own newly constructed house. The bona fides of such a requirement could not have been doubted solely on the ground that the structure of the building, though old and outdated, had not gone so weak as was needed to be demolished immediately. 11. So far as the neighbours are concerned, none has objected to the proposed reconstruction. In any case that is a matter to be settled by the landlord with his neighbours. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted during the course of hearing, and rightly in our opinion, that even if the neighbours were not agreeable to have the common wall demolished and replaced by a new wall the appellant was prepared to raise additional walls of his own next to the common walls, if any, and rest his entire structure on such walls. This obviates the need of proving consent of the adjoining building owners for the proposed reconstruction. 14. In the above said circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that relief of eviction as sought for could not have been denied to the appellant. There is no material available to hold that the landlord has something else in his mind such as getting rid of the tenant without raising construction. Sub- section (5) of section 14 of the Act protects the interest of the tenant by guarding against malafide evictions. There is no material available to hold that the landlord has something else in his mind such as getting rid of the tenant without raising construction. Sub- section (5) of section 14 of the Act protects the interest of the tenant by guarding against malafide evictions. It provides that where a landlord has obtained possession of the building or rented land for the purpose of building or rebuilding and puts the building to any other use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the controller shall make an order accordingly. This provision would not permit the building from which the tenant is being evicted being subjected to any other user or misuse." 18. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Pareed Kaka and others v. Shafee Ahmed Saheb, (2004) 5 SCC 241 have held that even a good building can be demolished if landlord considers it to be unsuitable for him and there is no need for the landlord to prove that condition of the building was such that it required immediate demolition. Their Lordships have held as under: "11. Law is well settled on this aspect. Even if the building is in a good condition, if it is not suitable for the requirement of the landlord, he can always demolish even a good building and put up a new building to suit his requirements. It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the condition of the building is such that it require immediate demolition particularly when the premises is required by the landlord. Therefore, it has to be held that the finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained and the High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, rightly so, held that the landlord has established that his need for all the four petition schedule premises is bona fide and reasonable." 19. Their Lordships of the in S. Venugopal v. A. Karruppusami and another, (2006) 4 SCC 507 had again the occasion to consider section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. Their Lordships of the in S. Venugopal v. A. Karruppusami and another, (2006) 4 SCC 507 had again the occasion to consider section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. Their Lordships have held that even if the building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site. Their Lordships have enumerated the following factors: i) Increase in commercial value of the location which would fetch landlord higher returns from his property apart from serving his own needs, ii) Funds available with the landlord to reconstruct may not be relevant when builders, financiers and banks are willing to advance the requisite funds, moreover, when the landlord has obtained plan approval for constriction. Their Lordships have further held that the Court has to take into account bona fide intention of the landlord, the age and condition of the building and the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. Their Lordships have held as under: "7. On the question of demolition and reconstruction of the premises in question, much was sought to be made out of the fact that the condition of the building had not been ascertained and, while according to the tenants it was not in a dilapidated condition, according to the landlord it was in a dilapidated condition. We do not attach much importance to the question as to whether the building was or was not in a dilapidated condition because Section 14 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") contemplates a building which is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it, and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. Therefore, Section 14 (1)(b) does not contemplate that the building sought to be demolished must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition. Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site. 8. In the instant case, it is obvious that the locality in which the premises in question is located has developed into a commercial locality. Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site. 8. In the instant case, it is obvious that the locality in which the premises in question is located has developed into a commercial locality. The building needed by the landlord is a single-storey building, whereas a large number of multistoreyed buildings have come up in that locality. The landlord realises that if he demolishes the old structure and erects a new multi-storeyed building, he will get a much better return of his investment. He, of course, asserts that in the newly constructed building he also requires space for conducting his own business. 9. There is also evidence on record to establish that the landlord had applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved for construction of a new building after demolishing the old structure. The landlord also asserted that he wanted to invest a sum of Rs. One-and-a-half lakhs on the construction. The High Court, however, after recording a finding ' of fact that the building was in a dilapidated condition, rejected the claim of the landlord on the ground that he had not satisfactorily established before the Court that he had the means to reconstruct the building and that he had not given details relating to his means to construct a new building. Moreover, he had not disclosed, how was he going to raise funds for reconstruction. 10. It is true that in granting permission under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Act, all relevant materials for recording a finding about the requirement of the landlord for demolishing the building and reconstruction of a new building have to be taken into account. The Rent Controller reached the conclusion that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction of a new building. This Court has observed in Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996) 6 SCC 475 that the court must take into account the bona fide intention of the landlord, the age and condition of the building, and the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into account and, they are by no means conclusive. 11. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into account and, they are by no means conclusive. 11. In the instant case, we find that the property owned by the landlord, whatever may have been its value in the past, has acquired commercial value and, therefore, the landlord wishes to demolish the old single-storey structure and to construct a multi-storeyed building which may fetch him higher rent, apart from serving his own needs. The landlord had already applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved. Taking into consideration all these reasons, we are convinced that the landlord bona fide intends to demolish the old building and to construct a new one. Raising funds for erecting a structure in a commercial centre is not at all difficult when a large number of builders, financiers as well as banks are willing to advance funds to erect new structures in commercial areas. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was willing to invest a sum of Rs. One-and-a-half lakhs of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs. 20. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the instant case, landlord has proved his bona fide for the reconstruction of the building. He has sufficient funds as per the statement of PW-2 and the condition of the building is dilapidated as per the report furnished by PW-3. He has already submitted building plan to the Municipal Corporation. The building is situated in a commercial area. The building is 100 years old. 21. Now, the Court will advert to the submission made by Mr. Ajay Kumar that the application preferred by his client under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure has wrongly been dismissed. An application under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the tenant on 24.7.2004 seeking direction to the landlord to allow Sh. H.S. Bisht to have assess to first floor and second floor of building No. 88, Lower Bazar, Shimla. In the instant case, the Court is dealing with the ground floor and not first or second floor. H.S. Bisht to have assess to first floor and second floor of building No. 88, Lower Bazar, Shimla. In the instant case, the Court is dealing with the ground floor and not first or second floor. The endeavour of the tenant was to establish that first and second floors were in good condition, however, it is not necessary as laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the building should be in dilapidated condition for the purpose of demolition or reconstruction. Moreover, the Court is only concerned with the ground floor, which as per the evidence led by the parties, is in a dilapidated condition. 22. Similarly, the application filed by the tenant under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has rightly been rejected by the Appellate Authority whereby the tenant wanted to place and prove on record the documents, as noticed hereinabove. Appellate Authority has given cogent and convincing reasons that the additional evidence could not improve the case of the tenant for the simple reason that it is not necessary for the landlord to establish that the building was old and dilapidated. 23. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work INC., (2007) 14 SCC 257 have held that provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to pass an order to patch up the weakness of the evidence of the unsuccessful party and Court must see whether evidence is required by it to do justice between the parties and for the pronouncement of the judgment to its own satisfaction. Mere difficulty is not enough. Their Lordships have held as under: "19. Appellate Court should not pass an order so as to patch up the weakness of the evidence of the unsuccessful party before the trial Court, but it will be different if the Court itself require the evidence to do justice between the parties. The ability to pronounce judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce judgment satisfactorily to the mind of the Court. But mere difficulty is not sufficient to issue such direction. While saying so, however, we do not mean that the Court at an appropriate stage would be precluded from considering the applicability of clause (b)." 24. The ability to pronounce judgment is to be understood as the ability to pronounce judgment satisfactorily to the mind of the Court. But mere difficulty is not sufficient to issue such direction. While saying so, however, we do not mean that the Court at an appropriate stage would be precluded from considering the applicability of clause (b)." 24. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme in Basayyal Mathad v. Rudrayya S. Mathad and others, (2008) 3 SCC 120 have held that the parties to the lis are not entitled to produce additional evidence as a matter of course or routine and for this purpose, they must satisfy the conditions enumerated in Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Their Lordships have held as under: "12. It is clear that parties to the lis are not entitled to produce additional evidence as of course or routine but must satisfy the conditions stated in sub-clauses (a)&(aa). Admittedly, such recourse has not been resorted to neither by the party concerned nor adhered those principles by the High Court. Paragraph 3 of his order shows that the learned Judge verified the document produced on his direction without complying the mandate as provided under Rule 27 Order 41. Hence, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Judge based on a document produced at the time of argument de hors to Rule 27 referred above cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such circumstances, his ultimate conclusion treating the suit property as a family property partible among the members of the family is also liable to be set aside. In fact, sub-clause (2) of Rule 27 mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, it shall record the reason for its admission. It is needless to mention that the High Court neither followed those conditions for production of additional evidence nor recorded the reason for basing reliance on the same." 25. Accordingly, in view of the observations made, hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.