Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 356 (MAD)

Savithri v. P. M. Moorthy

2012-01-24

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This revision petitioner is the landlord. She filed the petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default and on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Learned Rent Controller accepted the case of the landlord and ordered eviction and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal holding that there is no wilful default and the building does not require for demolition and it requires only repairs. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed. 2. The case was listed on 18.1.2012 and there was no representation for the respondent and the case was adjourned to 23.1.2012 and even on that day, there was no representation on the side of the respondent. Hence the respondent is set exparte. 3. Mr.V.Bharadhidasan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the learned Rent Controller appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and held that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and also held that the building is bonafidely required by the landlady for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. He further submitted that without appreciating the reasons stated by the learned Rent Controller for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and without going through the findings regarding wilful default, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority set aside the findings of the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal and therefore, the order of the learned Rent Controller is liable to be set aside. 4. It is seen from the petition filed by the revision petitioner before the court below that the rent from the month of December, 2002 till March 2003, was not paid and the building has to be demolished and a new building has to be constructed for the purpose of providing houses to each of her daughters. The respondent/tenant did not question the means of the landlady in putting up a new construction and only stated in the counter affidavit that the rent sent by him was refused to receive and therefore, steps are being taken to deposit the rent in court and that there is no bonafide in the submission of the landlady for demolition and reconstruction. 5. 5. The landlady was examined as PW1 and she has given evidence about the default committed by the tenant and also her requirement to demolish the building for the purpose constructing two houses for her daughters. Though the tenant has stated that the rent sent by him was refused by the landlady, no materials or proof was produced to substantiate the said condition. Further the respondent/tenant has not taken any steps to deposit the rent as contended by him in the counter and even during the pendency of the rent control proceedings the tenant has committed default and he has remitted arrears of rent of Rs.7000/- during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. 6. Considering all these aspects, the learned Rent Controller held that the intention of the petitioner is nothing but wilful and ordered eviction. Unfortunately, learned Rent Control Appellate Authority without considering all these aspects held that the tenant has stated that there is no arrears of rent and therefore, the landlady is not entitled to eviction on the ground of wilful default. 7. According to me, the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is perverse, without application of mind and is liable to be set aside. Further it is the specific case of the landlady that she wants to demolish the building and construct houses for her two daughters and she has also let in evidence to prove her means to construct a new building. As stated supra, there is no denial in the counter about the means of the landlady to construct a new building and the requirements of the landlady to provide house to her daughters. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority without appreciating the findings of the learned Rent Controller erroneously allowed the appeal holding that the building requires only repairs to be carried out and it does not require demolition. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the condition of the building is not a sinequa non for an application on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and even a well constructed building can be demolished by the landlady for the purpose of constructing a new building to suit her convenience or to augment further income. 8. In this case, the landlady has specifically pleaded that she wants to construct a new building for her daughters. 8. In this case, the landlady has specifically pleaded that she wants to construct a new building for her daughters. Having regard to the requirements of the landlady, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ought not to have held that the building does not require demolition and there is no bonafide. 9. In my opinion, the finding of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on both the grounds is perverse and is liable to be set aside. Hence the revision is allowed and the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Court), Gobichettipalayam is set aside and the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif),Gobichettipalayam is confirmed. The revision petition is allowed. No costs.