Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2228 (MAD)

V. Subramanian v. J. Muralishankar

2014-07-23

R.KARUPPIAH

body2014
ORDER Both the revision petitioners, who are the tenants, filed these two Civil Revision Petitions against the judgments passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Court, Mannargudi, wherein confirmed the fair and decretal orders of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Mannargudi. 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner/landlord in both RCOPs are referred as respondent and the respondents/tenants in both RCOPs are referred as revision petitioners hereafter. 3. With consent of both side counsels, both the Civil Revision Petitions are taken up jointly for consideration. 4. The respondent/landlord filed two eviction petitions in RCOP Nos.12 and 11 of 2006 for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) and 10(3)a(iii). In both petitions, the respondent herein has stated that both the revision petitioners had entered into separate agreement of lease in respect of two separate portions in the petition premises on 09.04.1997 for a period of three years and the revision petitioners also agreed to pay the rent of Rs.500/-each per month. Further, both revision petitioners have agreed to vacate the said premises at the end of lease period. According to the respondent, the petition premises is more than 70 years old and it was constructed with burnt bricks and mud mixture with cement coating outside and it is in a very damaged condition and hence, the respondent proposes to demolish the existing building and construct new building for his personal occupation and the respondent has also got sufficient fund in his hands. It is also stated that the respondent undertakes to demolish the building within a month and construct a new building within three months from the date of delivery of possession. It is also averred in the petition that the respondent orally demanded to vacate the premises on 09.04.2000 and also issued a lawyer notice to the revision petitioners on 16.03.2000, but, the revision petitioners issued reply by denying the averments in the notice. Therefore, filed both the petitions for eviction of both revision petitioners on two grounds. 5. Both the revision petitioners have filed separate counter in both petitions and admitted that both the revision petitioners are tenants under the respondent and also admitted that the lease agreement period already expired on 09.04.2000. According to the revision petitioners, they are continuing as tenants holding over and hence they are statutory tenants. The revision petitioners also paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- each as advance to the respondent. According to the revision petitioners, they are continuing as tenants holding over and hence they are statutory tenants. The revision petitioners also paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- each as advance to the respondent. The revision petitioners have denied the oral demand of the respondent to vacate the premises on 09.04.2000 as false. It is also averred in the counter filed by the revision petitioners that the petition mentioned building is not in a damaged condition as alleged in the petitions. Further, they denied the contentions of the respondent that he proposes to demolish the existing building and to construct a new building for his personal occupation are as false. Further, it is stated that the said averments made with ulterior motive for eviction of the revision petitioners and the requirement is not a bonafide one. It is also averred in the counters that the building has been repaired by the revision petitioners since the respondent has not carried out any repairs and the building is not required any demolition since it is in a good condition. The respondent has not applied to Mannargudi Municipality for reconstruction by submitting a plan for approval. It is also averred in the counters that the respondent had demanded higher rent for which the revision petitioners have not accepted and therefore, with ulterior motive and for enhancement of rent these two petitions have been filed. The respondent is a big businessman owning other non-residential building in Mannargudi Town. The Revision petitioners further denied that the suit premises required by the respondent for personal occupation and he is having enough fund for reconstruction of new building are all false. Therefore, both revision petitioners prayed for to dismiss the eviction petitions. 6. The Rent Controller had considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side in both petitions and finally held that the respondent is not entitled to evict the revision petitioners on the ground of own occupation, but, eviction was ordered on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. 7. Aggrieved over the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller, the revision petitioners/tenants have preferred two Rent Control Appeals in RCA Nos.13 of 2006 and 12 of 2006 respectively. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considered both sides submission and finally confirmed the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed both Rent Control Appeals. 7. Aggrieved over the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller, the revision petitioners/tenants have preferred two Rent Control Appeals in RCA Nos.13 of 2006 and 12 of 2006 respectively. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considered both sides submission and finally confirmed the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed both Rent Control Appeals. Aggrieved over the eviction orders passed by both courts below, these two civil revision petitions have been filed by the revision petitioners. 8. The point for consideration in this revision petition is that whether the concurrent findings of both courts below are illegal or perverse as contended by the revision petitioners ? 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent is landlord and the revision petitioners are tenants under the respondent in two separate portions in the petition mentioned premises. It is also not in dispute that the period of tenancy mentioned in the agreement expired and both revision petitioners continuing as tenants in holding over. 10. In the above said circumstances, the respondent herein filed eviction petitions for demolition and reconstruction and also for own use. But, both courts below have dismissed the prayer for eviction on the ground of own use, but both courts below have concurrently held that the respondent is entitled to evict the revision petitioners on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the petition premises is in a sound condition and it is not required for demolition. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that the respondent has not made any preparation for putting up a new construction. Further, the Commissioner had filed a report and in which, it is stated that the building is in a good condition except hairline cracks in the plastering and therefore, the petitions filed for eviction only with an intention to evict the petitioners. Further, the learned counsel submitted that another tenant is also in occupation of the same building and the building could not be demolished without evicting all the tenants and that itself reveals the malafide of the respondent. Therefore, prayed for to set aside the findings of both courts below and to dismiss both the eviction petitions. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petition premises was constructed with sun burnt bricks and mud mixed with cement coating outside. Therefore, prayed for to set aside the findings of both courts below and to dismiss both the eviction petitions. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petition premises was constructed with sun burnt bricks and mud mixed with cement coating outside. The above said building is more than 70 years old and there are cracks in the walls and also in the floor. Therefore, the building is in a very damaged condition. The learned counsel further submitted that the building is required for immediate demolition and reconstruction and the respondent had given necessary undertakings to demolish the building within one month and construct the new building within three months from the date of delivery of possession. The learned counsel further pointed out that both courts below have considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and correctly passed orders of eviction and the above said eviction orders of the courts below are not perverse or illegal. 13. The landlord and tenancy relationship is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the period of tenancy as per agreement has already expired and the revision petitioners continuing in possession as tenants holding over. The respondent herein filed both petitions to evict the revision petition on two grounds 1) Own occupation, 2) Demolition and Reconstruction. 14. The Rent Controller discussed about the evidence adduced on either side and held that the respondent himself admitted in his evidence that he is running business in his another own premises and therefore, the respondent cannot get the petition premises to carry the same business while he is in occupation of the other building and therefore, rejected the prayer for eviction on the ground of owners own occupation. But, the Rent Controller has considered the age and condition of the building stated in the Commissioner's report and plan in Exs.C1 and C2 and also admission of the revision petitioners and finally held that the building is more than 40 or 50 years old and it is in a very damaged condition and it also requires immediate demolition. The Rent Controller further held that the respondent had proved the bonafide in demolition and reconstruction and finally passed an order of eviction as prayed for in the petition. The Rent Controller further held that the respondent had proved the bonafide in demolition and reconstruction and finally passed an order of eviction as prayed for in the petition. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also held that in the petition, the age of the building was stated as 70 years, but, from the evidence it is proved that it is 50 years old building. The Appellate Authority also considered the condition of the building stated in the Commissioner's report and plan and having means of the respondent to construct new building and held that the respondent has proved the bonafide requirement of demolition and reconstruction of the building. Further, both courts below have considered the decisions relied on by the respondent reported in 1)2000 MLJ Supplement 482, 2) 1997 (1) MLJ 445 and 3) (2005) 4 MLJ 628 and finally granted the relief as prayed for by the respondent. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners mainly contended before this Court that in the petition premises, there are three portions available, in which, two portions were occupied by both revision petitioners as tenants and the other portion occupied by another tenant in the same building, but, the respondent herein has not sought for any relief for eviction and hence, the requirement of demolition and reconstruction by the respondent is not bonafide. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the revision petitioners have not stated the above said facts in the counter. Further, the above said tenant is always ready and willing to vacate the premises and therefore, the contention of the revision petitioners cannot be accepted. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the revision petitioners have not pleaded in the counter that the eviction petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petition for eviction was not filed to vacate another tenant. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that the other tenant is always ready and willing to vacate the premises and in the above said circumstances, the eviction order passed by both courts below cannot be set aside on the above said ground. 17. The next contention of the revision petitioners is that the building is in a good condition and there are only hairline cracks in plastering and therefore, no need to demolish and reconstruct the building as prayed for in the petition. 17. The next contention of the revision petitioners is that the building is in a good condition and there are only hairline cracks in plastering and therefore, no need to demolish and reconstruct the building as prayed for in the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that on a perusal of Commissioner's Report and Plan Exs.C1 and C2, it clearly show that the building is more than 40 or 50 years old and it is in a damaged condition. 18. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in the above said Commissioner's Report Ex.C1 it is clearly stated as the walls in the suit premises were constructed with bricks and mud mixture and plastering with cement and there are some damages in the floor and cracks in the roof portion. Considering all the physical features of the building stated in the Commissioner's report and plan reveal that the above said building is more than 40 or 50 years old and it is in a damaged condition as found by the Advocate Commissioner. 19. Admittedly, the revision petitioners have not proved by reliable evidence that the building is not in a damaged condition as found by the Commissioner or as pleaded by the respondent. Both courts below have concurrently held that the building is in a damaged condition and hence, required for immediate demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, the above said findings of both courts below are not perverse or illegal as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 20. The next contention of the revision petitioners is that the respondent has not proved his capacity to demolish and reconstruct the building and also not taken any steps to construct the new building and hence, the respondent has not proved the bonafide requirement. Both courts below have discussed about the oral and documentary evidence and held that the revision petitioners themselves admitted that the respondent is a big business man having own nonresidential building in Mannargudi Town and the respondent also produced several documents to prove the capacity to raise funds. From the above said discussion, it is clear that both courts below have correctly considered the evidence adduced on either side and given correct findings that the respondent having sufficient means to demolish and reconstruct the building. From the above said discussion, it is clear that both courts below have correctly considered the evidence adduced on either side and given correct findings that the respondent having sufficient means to demolish and reconstruct the building. Further, the respondent herein filed the petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction since the premises is old and in a damaged condition. As already discussed from oral and documentary evidence particularly from the Commissioner's Report and Plan, the respondent has proved the damaged condition of the building. In the above said circumstances, only on the ground that the respondent has not taking any steps to obtain permission by producing plan for demolition and reconstruction alone is not sufficient ground for rejecting the prayer as rightly held by both courts below. Therefore, both courts below have correctly given findings and passed orders of eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and there is no need to interfere with the correct findings of both courts below. 21. In the result, both civil revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.