Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 868 (MAD)

B. Dayalan v. A. M. Bhuvaneswari

2012-02-20

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlord filed RCOP.No.1734 of 2003 on the file of the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai for eviction against the four tenants on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and the revision petitioner is the second respondent in that application. Learned Rent Controller on being satisfied with the boanafide requirement of the landlord passed eviction order in RCOP.No.1734 of 2003 on 2.7.2004 and against the order of eviction of four tenants, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in RCA.No.855 of 2004 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also ordered eviction and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that as per the engineer's report filed on behalf of the revision petitioner, the building is 40 years old and it is in good condition and not in dilapidated condition as stated by the respondent and without appreciating the same, the courts below relying upon the engineer's report filed by the landlord/respondent ordered eviction. He further submitted that the landlord/respondent admitted in evidence that three years prior to the application for eviction he advertised for sale of the property and therefore, the landlord's intention was only to evict the tenant and sell the property for good price and this has not been considered by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority to arrive at the bonafide requirement of the landlord and therefore, the order of the courts below is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Mr.P.Balaji, submitted that there are four tenants in the premises and RCOP.No.1734 of 2003 was filed for eviction against the four tenants and eviction order was passed in the said application. Thereafter, the revision petitioner and another filed appeals in RCA.No.855 and 856 of 2004 before the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai and both the appeals were dismissed and against the dismissal of RCA.No.855 of 2004, this revision is filed by the revision petitioner and against the dismissal of RCA.No.586 of 2004, no revision has been preferred so far. He further submitted that Ilayaraja, who is the third respondent in RCOP.No.1734 of 2003 filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and in that appeal after hearing the arguments judgement is awaited. He further submitted that Ilayaraja, who is the third respondent in RCOP.No.1734 of 2003 filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and in that appeal after hearing the arguments judgement is awaited. He further submitted that in respect of other tenant namely V.S.Ramasubramniam, who is the first respondent in RCOP.No.1734 of 2003, no appeal has been filed and eviction passed has become final. 4. He further submitted that the landlord has stated in para 8 of the petition about the means of the landlord to put up a new construction to get more income and considering all those aspects, both the authorities ordered eviction. He further submitted that the landlord has admitted in his evidence that two years prior to the filing of the application, he wanted to sell the property, he also deposed that he has changed his mind and decided to put up a new construction after demolishing the existing construction and therefore, it cannot be contended that the landlord has no intention to demolish the existing superstructure. According to him, the building is in a dilapidated condition and that has been proved by the report of the engineer and RW1 engineer examined on the side of the revision petitioner and he deposed that he has not made enquiry about the age of the building and he has also admitted that the building was constructed as per old model. He further stated that the engineer examined on the side of the landlord gave evidence to the effect that after considering the materials used in the construction, he fixed the age of the building as 83 years old and he has also given details about the damages caused to the building and considering all those aspects the court below rightly held that the building is more than 80 years old. He further contended that there is no denial about the means of the landlord and therefore, order of the courts below are to be confirmed and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. According to me, the contentions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide and the building is not in dilapidated condition and the building is only aged about 45 years old, cannot be accepted. 5. According to me, the contentions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the requirement of the landlord is not bonafide and the building is not in dilapidated condition and the building is only aged about 45 years old, cannot be accepted. In para 8 of the eviction petition, the landlord has stated that he has got means to put up a new construction and if new construction is put up that would be beneficial to him in all respect. The landlord has also given evidence to that effect and there is no denial regarding the means of the landlord to put up a new construction. The landlord has also filed proof for having obtained the plan. 6. It has been held by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the condition of building need not be a sine qua non for demolition and reconstruction and the court has to find out whether requirement of the landlord is bonafide and the landlord is entitled to demolish the building which is in good condition and put up a new construction to augment his income and in this case even according to the revision petitioner, the building is aged 45 years old and therefore, the requirement of the landlord to demolish the building and put up a new construction cannot be held to be malafide. 7. Further the landlord's engineer who was examined as PW2 also gave evidence about the condition of the building and the engineer who was examined on the side of the revision petitioner did not give any evidence regarding the condition except stating that the condition of the building is good. Therefore, considering the fact that even according to the revision petitioner the building is 45 years old, in my opinion, the respondent/landlord has proved that the building is required bonafidely for demolition and reconstruction. Admittedly the eviction petition was filed against four tenants and the revision petitioner is one among them and others who were ordered to be evicted, not vacated and handed over possession. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that one tenant has filed a revision and the same has not been numbered and against the another tenant, the order is awaited from the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that one tenant has filed a revision and the same has not been numbered and against the another tenant, the order is awaited from the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Further the tenant by name V.S.Ramasubramaniam has not filed any appeal and till date the landlord has not taken possession from the said tenant. 8. Considering all these aspects, the landlord shall execute the eviction order simultaneously against all the tenants and till such time the revision petitioner is entitled to remain in possession of the property. 9. I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed.