Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 684 (MAD)

M. N. Ansari v. M. N. Mohaideen Pillai

2013-01-31

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
JUDGMENT A recapitulation and resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: 1. The revision petitioner/landlord, filed an application invoking Sections 14(1)(a) and 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (“Act” in short) for getting the tenant vacated so as to enable the landlord to repair the building, which is in a dilapidated condition. The tenant resisted the same on the ground that the building is not in such a dilapidated condition and hence it did not require repairs. 2. Up went the enquiry, during which, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and documents Exs.P1 to P5 were marked and the tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. Exs.C1 to C2 were marked as Court documents. 3. Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction against which C.M.A. was filed before the appellate Authority, which reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the R.C.O.P. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the appellate Authority, the present Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the landlord would put forth and set forth his arguments, which would succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The Rent Controller, taking into account the Engineer's Report and the Advocate Commissioner's Report, ordered eviction as prayed for, but the appellate Court, without adverting to the factual matrix of the evidence, simply reversed the reasoned order of the Lower Court. The appellate Authority was wrong in construing as though the undertaking as contemplated under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, was not given even though in Paragraph-10 such an undertaking is found set out. The appellate Authority has not considered the genuineness of the Engineer's Report marked as Ex.C2. Accordingly, the counsel for the landlord would pray to get set aside the order of the appellate Court and for restoring the order of the Rent Controller. He would also undertake that his client is ready to file one another undertaking also before taking delivery of the demised premises. 6. Accordingly, the counsel for the landlord would pray to get set aside the order of the appellate Court and for restoring the order of the Rent Controller. He would also undertake that his client is ready to file one another undertaking also before taking delivery of the demised premises. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent / tenant, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner, would pyramid his arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The appellate Court has seen the reality that no steps have been taken by the landlord to get the Advocate Commissioner's Report erased. It is the Advocate Commissioner's Report which would prevail over the Engineer's Report as the Advocate Commissioner is the Court Officer. The undertaking was not given in the way known to Section 14 of the Act. Hence, the counsel would pray for the dismissal of the revision petition. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the appellate Authority is justified in reversing the order passed in the R.C.O.P. by the Rent Controller based on the reasons found set out in the order of the appellate Authority? 8. A mere running of the eye over the Commissioner's Report-Ex.C1, and Engineer's Report-Ex.C2 would connote and denote that both the exhibits do not go hand in hand, or hang together. The Engineer is an expert in the field, who would unambiguously and unequivocally, listed out the defects in the building, in his report, which are extracted hereunder, for ready reference. “The super structure walls of the building consists of brick work with mud mortar and plastered by lime mortar. Roofing with Madras Terrace in Ground floor and one room in first floor with old tiled roof. Existing flooring is in cement mortar. Now the age of the above building is about sixty four years old. Madras Terrace roof is weak in position through the age of Palmyra rafters. First floor tiled roof is not in good condition. The walls of first floor is constructed by mud mortar and plastered with lime mortar. TOTALLY the above building is to be fully dismantled and re-constructed with RCC framed structure without disturbance of common walls of other shops. Madras Terrace roof is weak in position through the age of Palmyra rafters. First floor tiled roof is not in good condition. The walls of first floor is constructed by mud mortar and plastered with lime mortar. TOTALLY the above building is to be fully dismantled and re-constructed with RCC framed structure without disturbance of common walls of other shops. Plan approval is ready for Roof conversion vide plan approval No.f.m.vz;.120 / 03 / TP3 dt.17.02.03, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation.” 9. However, the Commissioner who took the assistance of the said Engineer, would give an antithetical view. There is no knowing of the fact as to what made the Commissioner not to take the assistance of some other Engineer. Undoubtedly and indubitably, the Advocate Commissioner is the officer of the Court and once he feels that the Engineer was not right in his approach, he was having the power to get him removed and take the assistance of some other Engineer with the direction of the Court. But simply, after filing Ex.C2 along with Ex.C1-Commissioner's Report, the Commissioner would give an antithetical finding to that of the Engineer. This fact was not at all taken note of by the appellate Authority. However, the Rent Controller correctly appreciated the facts that objections were not filed by the tenant to the Engineer's Report. Whereas, the landlord filed objection to the Commissioner's Report. Scarcely could it be stated that the building is not more than 60 years' old and Palmyra rafters are there supporting the roof, and the Engineer felt that the demised premises required extensive repairs. 10. In the petition itself, an undertaking was given by the landlord in compliance with Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Where it cannot be gainsaid that the landlord did not comply with the requirements of Section 14 of the Act. 10. In the petition itself, an undertaking was given by the landlord in compliance with Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Where it cannot be gainsaid that the landlord did not comply with the requirements of Section 14 of the Act. A fortiori the order of the appellate Authority is illegal, as it is wide off the mark and accordingly it is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller is restored, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner is expected to file an undertaking as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act, anterior to taking delivery, before the appropriate authority, ie., either before the Rent Controller or before the executing Court, and after taking such delivery, both the parties are expected to strictly adhere to Section 15 of the Act. 11. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.