Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4256 (MAD)

Saleena Almedha v. Soundarapandian

2011-10-13

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2010 passed in R.C.A.No.8 of 2009 by the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Ponneri, confirming the order and decretal order dated 30.6.2009 passed in R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2002 by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thiruvottiyur. 2. The respondents herein filed R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2008 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to evict the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of the building. In support of the said plea, the land owners, the husband and wife, the respondents herein, marked Exs.P-1 to P-4, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.P-1 is the Advocate notice addressed to the respondent/tenant dated 26.6.2002, Ex.P-2 is the reply notice addressed to the landlords' counsel dated 5.9.2002, Ex.P-3 is the photocopy of the building plan approval and Ex.P-4 is the photocopy of the fixed deposit receipt dated 17.9.2005. Mr.A.B.Soundarapandian, the first respondent herein, was examined as P.W.1. The revision petitioner/tenant was examined as R.W.1. Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked, the details of which are as follows:- Ex.R-1 Advocate notice addressed to the respondent/tenant dated 26.8.2002 and Ex.R-2 reply notice addressed to the petitioners/landlords' counsel dated 5.9.2002. The learned Rent Controller taking note of the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P-3, the building plan approval and Ex.P-4 the fixed deposit receipt showing the substantial funds for demolition and reconstruction of the building, accepted the landlords' plea for demolition and reconstruction of the building and allowed the original petition and directed the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate and hand over the petition mentioned premises to the landlords. While doing so, the learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of the revision petitioner/tenant that the entire exercise of the landlords is mala fide and only to evict the revision petitioner/tenant somehow or other and the intention is not bona fide. The learned Rent Controller relying upon the decision in Venugopal - vs. - Karruppusami and another reported in 2006(2) CTC 615 = AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1930, accepted the landlords' plea that the landlords have got sufficient funds and obtained approved building plan, which clearly establishes the bona fide plea of the landlords for demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller relying upon the decision in Venugopal - vs. - Karruppusami and another reported in 2006(2) CTC 615 = AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1930, accepted the landlords' plea that the landlords have got sufficient funds and obtained approved building plan, which clearly establishes the bona fide plea of the landlords for demolition and reconstruction. On this premise, the Original Petition was allowed and the appeal filed by the tenant/revision petitioner was dismissed and hence the Civil Revision Petition. 3. At the time of admission on 14.3.2011, interim stay was granted on condition a sum of Rs.71,500/- should be deposited by the revision petitioner/tenant for the purpose of interim stay. The revision petitioner/tenant was directed to pay the same directly to the respondents/landlords or deposit the same before the court below on or before 18.4.2011. The revision petitioner/tenant failed to make such deposit. Since the conditional order was not complied with, the interim stay was not extended further as recorded by this Court on 18.4.2011. 4. However, after hearing both the parties, this Court is of the view that the Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of considering the nature of issue involved in the present revision petition. 5. The main ground raised by the revision petitioner/tenant before the courts below as well as before this Court is that the respondents/landlords have been attempting to evict the revision petitioner/tenant. He referred to earlier proceedings filed for fixation of fair rent and the present one to demolish and reconstruct the building with the sole purpose of evicting the revision petitioner/tenant by some method. 6. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found favour with the plea of landlords that the petition premises was situated in a prime locality and the building is very old structure and if the building is demolished and reconstructed it will certainly fetch higher rent. The learned Appellate Authority also took into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in Venugopal - vs. - Karruppusami and another reported in 2006(2) CTC 615 = AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1930, which recognised the right of the land owner to demolish the old building and to reconstruct the new building which may fetch higher rent apart from serving his own needs. In this case also the respondents/landlords plea is to demolish and reconstruct a new building in the land situate in a highly commercial locality. In this case also the respondents/landlords plea is to demolish and reconstruct a new building in the land situate in a highly commercial locality. He has obtained a plan approval from the competent authority and has raised sufficient funds for putting up a new structure. Evidence has been let in to the said effect. The Appellate Court also found enough justification in the landlords' claim for demolition and reconstruction. The Appellate Court taking note of the Apex Court's decision as above and the prime location of the property upheld the bona fides of the landlords' claim in the following terms:- "30. Nowadays it is not a tough job to obtain loan from the financial institutions/Banks. This aspect is discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006(2) CTC 165 Venugopal vs. Karruppusami & another .. it is held ... "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.1.5 lakhs of his own and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs. On perusal of both sides oral and documentary evidences, it is clear that the property is situated on the main road i.e., Kathivakkam Main Road. There cannot be any secondary opinion after threat demolishing the structure, new structure which would come up would definitely fetch more income. The respondent's plea that having marked approval plan and fixed deposit receipt with a view to raise a new structure in the suit property appears to be acceptable. Hence, I am of the opinion that the landlords have filed this petition with bona fides. Therefore, there is no infirmity and irregularity in the order of the learned Rent Controller and there is no necessity to interfere or reverse the order of the learned Rent Controller." 7. On going through the findings of the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, it is clear that there is nothing to show that the landlords' plea for demolition and reconstruction is not a bona fide one. Further more the landlords/respondents have clearly stated that they intend to demolish the petition mentioned property and reconstruct and it is not intended to evict the tenant. Further more the landlords/respondents have clearly stated that they intend to demolish the petition mentioned property and reconstruct and it is not intended to evict the tenant. Such plea is vehemently denied. 8. The Act provides that if the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs within one month from the date of delivery or fails to complete the work before expiry of three months from the date of delivery or before the expiry of the further period allowed, the tenant can reoccupy the building. In such view of the matter, the undertaking of the respondents/landlords to demolish the building has to be favourably considered and this Court is unable to find any reason whatsoever to find fault with the finding of the courts below on merits. 9. In the result, the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruvottiyur and confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Ponneri, is confirmed. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. As requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant three months time is granted to vacate and hand over the petition premises to the respondents/landlords.