Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1797 (MAD)

Hariharasudhan v. T. K. Kameswaran

2012-04-09

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCA.No.1340 of 2004 confirming the order dated 27.9.2004 passed by the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.1653 of 2001, this civil revision petition is focused. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 4. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (i) The respondent/landlord fled the R.C.O.P.seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from their occupation of a non-residential portion in a row of shops on the ground that the said premises was required for his 'personal occupation' and also for 'demolition and reconstruction'. (ii) The matter was resisted by the petitioner/tenant by filing counter. (iii) The said RCOP was enquired into along with five other R.C.O.P.s relating to five other tenants. During such common enquiry, on the landlord side, the landlord-T.K.Kameswaran examined himself as P.W.1 along with the Engineer Rhieu M.Azeez Mohideen as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P.21 were marked. On the tenants' side as many as nine witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 9, including three Engineers and Exs.R1 to R14 were marked. However, for the purpose of RCOP No.1653 of 2004 connected with this revision is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and few exhibits are relevant. Similarly on the tenants' side, the tenant Hariharasudhan's evidence as R.W.5 and the Engineer's (Anbarasan) evidence as R.W.3 and few exhibits are relevant. (iv) Ultimately, the Rent Controller rejected the plea of 'owner's occupation', but granted the relief based on 'demolition and reconstruction'. (v) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the tenant preferred appeal for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate authority, confirming the order of the Rent Controller. 5. This revision is focussed by the same tenant expressing his grievance over the findings of both the authorities below by contending that there is no shard or shred, jot or molecular extent of evidence to show that the building was in a dilapidated condition. 6. 5. This revision is focussed by the same tenant expressing his grievance over the findings of both the authorities below by contending that there is no shard or shred, jot or molecular extent of evidence to show that the building was in a dilapidated condition. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether both the authorities below were justified in ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction even though allegedly no evidence was adduced on the side of the landlord highlighting the alleged cracks, which got developed in the process of the Government having constructed a flyover in the nearby area. 7. A mere poring over and perusal of the orders of both the Courts below would exemplify and demonstrate that they took into account the oral and documentary evidence and gave a categorical finding that the requirement of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction was bona fide and accordingly ordered eviction. 8. The learned Senior counsel for the landlord/respondent herein would cite the following decisions of the Honourable Apex as well as this Court: (i) 2002(2) CTC 549 – Harrington House School v. S.M.Ispahani and another; (ii) 2002(4) L.W.427 R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Venkatesha Gupta and others; (iii) 2002(4) CTC 753 – Shakeelulr Rahman v. Syed MeMehdi Ispahani; (iv) 2003(2) LW 93 – Ganesan v. Subbiah Dharmanithi 9. Placing reliance on those decisions, both the Courts below ordered eviction. 10. A mere running of eye over those decisions would convey and portray that even if a landlord wants the existing building to be demolished for the purpose of augmenting his income by putting a new construction in the place of the old construction, which may not be of that much dilapidated in nature or down at heels, yet the authorities under the Rent Control Act should help such landlord to get possession of the premises for demolition and reconstruction. 11. Exs.P9 and P10 are the approved plans furnished by the landlord to show that he obtained permission for demolition and reconstruction of the premises concerned. He also marked Ex.P16(series)-the Engineer's report and placed reliance on the deposition of P.W.2-the Engineer-Mr.Rhieu M.Azeez Mohideen, so as to buttress and fortify his contention that the building developed cracks and that it required to be demolished and reconstructed. 12. He also marked Ex.P16(series)-the Engineer's report and placed reliance on the deposition of P.W.2-the Engineer-Mr.Rhieu M.Azeez Mohideen, so as to buttress and fortify his contention that the building developed cracks and that it required to be demolished and reconstructed. 12. Whereas, on the respondent's side Ex.R8 was marked and also reliance was placed on the deposition of R.W.3-the Engineer-Anbarsan to fortify the contention that the building was not in a dilapidated condition or down at heel for being demolished and reconstructed. 13. The finding of both the authorities below are to the effect that the cracks in the building as alleged by the landlord were not proved, however, they ordered eviction purely on the ground that the landlord was entitled to augment his income by putting up a new superstructure, after demolishing the existing superstructure. In this factual matrix, this Court being the revisional Court is having no reason to interfere with the findings on fact by both the authorities below. 14. The core question arises as to whether eviction could be ordered in view of the fact that the landlord wants to augment the income by putting up a new structure in replacement of the existing structure. 15. The precedents cited supra would highlight and spotlight the fact that the landlord is entitled to do so. When such is the legal position, the tenant cannot dictate terms and compel the landlord to get himself satisfied with the meagre income that is being derived by him from his old building. Hence, I am of the considered view that absolutely there is no perversity or illegality in the findings of both the authorities, and no interference in revision is warranted. 16. I would like to make it explicitly clear by way of reiterating that the landlord before getting the order executed should satisfy the executing Court by producing the current and operative sanction plan for demolition and reconstruction of the premises concerned. 17. Taking into consideration the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the tenant that his client has been doing 'Papad business' in the premises and that he would obviously and axiomatically require some time to obtain alternative accommodation, I would like to grant seven months' time for eviction, subject to payment of rent regularly to the landlord by the revision petitioner Within 15 days an affidavit to that effect should be filed by the revision petitioner. 18. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.