Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3290 (MAD)

T. D. Harilakshmi v. R. B. Hariram

2014-09-12

V.M.VELUMANI

body2014
Judgment : 1. This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 19.07.2010, passed in R.C.A.No.50 of 2003 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Madurai, confirming the fair and decretal order, dated 18.02.2003, passed in R.C.O.P.No.201 of 1996 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court (Rent Controller), Madurai. 2. The petitioners are the tenants, whereas the respondent is the landlord in R.C.O.P.No.201 of 1996 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court (Rent Controller), Madurai. 3. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.201 of 1996 for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of bona-fide requirement of building for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said R.C.O.P. was allowed by the order dated 18.02.2003, ordering eviction of the petitioners directing them to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the respondent. 4. Against the order of eviction, the petitioners filed R.C.A.No.50 of 2003 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Madurai. The Appellate Authority by the order, dated 19.07.2010, dismissed the R.C.A. Against the order of dismissal, the present civil revision petition is filed. 5. The facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent purchased the petition premises on 15.07.1994. At the time of purchase, the petition premises was very old and dilapidated condition with full of cracks and likely to fall down at any time. Therefore, the respondent decided to demolish the existing building and put up a new construction. The petitioners were tenants with the vendor of the respondent in respect of a portion of the petition premises. The petitioners running a Tea Shop and they are paying a monthly rent of Rs.125/- to the petition premises. The petitioners agreed with the bona fide requirement of the respondent for demolition and reconstruction, wanted a portion of the property to be sold to them, so that they can shift the Tea Shop to that portion and vacate the petition premises under their control. According to the said offer, the respondent on 16.03.1995, sold a portion of the property to the petitioners. Contrary to the said agreement, the petitioners did not vacate and deliver vacant possession. Therefore, the respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.201 of 1996 for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. According to the said offer, the respondent on 16.03.1995, sold a portion of the property to the petitioners. Contrary to the said agreement, the petitioners did not vacate and deliver vacant possession. Therefore, the respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.201 of 1996 for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The respondent has stated that the building is very old and is in a dilapidated condition and may fall down at any time. The respondent also stated that he has prepared a plan for reconstruction to new building and made all arrangements for demolition and he has sufficient means to put up a new construction. The respondent also gave an undertaking that he will start demolition within one month from the date of taking possession of the property and complete the construction within three months. 6. The petitioners denied all the allegations of the respondent and stated that as there is dispute with regard to the place of registration, the petitioners have come out with the present petition. The building is not very old and not in a dilapidated condition. The respondent has let out two other portions for running an Auditor's Office and for running STD Booth. They also stated that the respondent's requirement for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. 7. In the trial, the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and the Photographer was examined as P.W.2 and the Engineer was examined as P.W.3. The respondent marked 18 documents. The second petitioner was examined as R.W.1. No documents were marked on behalf of the petitioners. Pending R.C.O.P., an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and inspected the suit property along with an Engineer. The Advocate Commissioner filed his report along with the report and plan of the Engineer. These documents are marked as Court documents i.e., Exs.C1 to C3. Considering the pleadings, evidence, documents and arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller allowed the R.C.O.P. ordering eviction of the petitioners. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners filed R.C.A.No.50 of 2003. The Appellate Authority considering all the materials on record and various grounds raised by the petitioners, dismissed the R.C.A. by the order, dated 19.07.2010. Against the order of the Courts below, the petitioners have filed the present civil revision petition. 8. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The Appellate Authority considering all the materials on record and various grounds raised by the petitioners, dismissed the R.C.A. by the order, dated 19.07.2010. Against the order of the Courts below, the petitioners have filed the present civil revision petition. 8. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Courts below failed to see that the respondent failed to make out the case for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. He also contended that the respondent is running a rice mill and flour mill in the very same building and there is an Auditor's Office and STD Booth. He further contended that the petitioners have filed objections to the Advocate Commissioner and Engineer's Reports and the Courts below erred in accepting the Engineer's Report in the absence of the Engineer being examined as witness. The building is not in a dilapidated condition and the age of the building is not a criteria for demolition and reconstruction. 10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following Judgments: (i) Hameedia Hardware Stores v. Mohan Lal Sowear [1988 (2) LW 1] (ii) Balasubramaniam v. Waran [ 1997 (3) LW 850 ] (iii) Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal [AIR 1997 SC 47] 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the building is very old one and is in a dilapidated condition with cracks and it may fall down at any time. The Engineer has given a report with regard to the condition of the building. The condition mentioned in the Engineer's Report, warrants demolition of the building. The respondent has made all the arrangements for demolition and reconstruction and he has sufficient means for the same. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent's son is an Auditor and he is having his Office in the petition premises and the respondent's daughter is running a STD Booth in a portion of the petition premises. The respondent's son and daughter will vacate and deliver vacant possession in the moment, the petitioners vacate and deliver vacant possession to the respondent. 13. The respondent's son and daughter will vacate and deliver vacant possession in the moment, the petitioners vacate and deliver vacant possession to the respondent. 13. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following Judgments: (i) Shakeelulr Rahman v. Syed Mehdi Ispahani [2002 (4) CTC 753] (ii) Saraswathy v. The National Rayon Corporation Ltd. [ 1999 (3) MLJ 117 ] (iii) J.Josephine Christobell v. P.Subramanian [ 2010 (1) MLJ 500 ] (iv) S.Thangaswamy v. R.Vinayakamurthy [ 1996 (II) CTC 105 ] 14. In all these Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the parties, it has been held as follows:- (a) Age of the building is not the criteria. (b) Condition of the building is the criteria in deciding whether to demolish or not. (c) The preparation and capacity of the landlord to demolish and reconstruction of the building. (d) Whether the request of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction isbona fide. 15. In the present case, the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and gave evidence that his requirement is bona fide, he has made all the arrangements for demolition and reconstruction and he has sufficient means for demolition and reconstruction of the building. He has also gave an undertaking that he will start the demolition within one month from the date of taking possession and complete the construction within three months. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Rent Controller filed his report along with the report and plan of the Engineer. These reports support the case of the respondent. Further, the respondent's son and daughter only are running an Auditor Office and STD Booth and definitely they will vacate the premises immediately to enable the respondent to demolish and reconstruction of the building. The second petitioner was examined as R.W.1. But he has not filed any documents to prove that the building is in sound condition, which does not require any demolition. Both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority considered all the materials on record, evidence, arguments and the Judgments cited by the parties, have come to the correct conclusion ordering eviction of the petitioners. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the Judgment reported in 2000 (I) MLJ 183 [S.Muthiah v. Parvathy and Others], for the proposition that the scope of review is very limited. In paragraph 28, it has been held as follows:- "28. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the Judgment reported in 2000 (I) MLJ 183 [S.Muthiah v. Parvathy and Others], for the proposition that the scope of review is very limited. In paragraph 28, it has been held as follows:- "28. It is settled law that in the concurrent findings arrived at by the statutory authorities, the Revisional Court cannot normally interfere with unless patent errors of law or perversity in approach or denial of opportunity in violation of the principles of natural justice resulting in consequent failure of justice are shown. Regarding the concurrent finding arrived at by the authorities below fairly appreciating the evidence and applying the norms of law which is agreeable in every sense, the Revisional Court is not at all expected to interfered with. Based on this settled principle, it is relevant to consider the position of the case to an extent." 17. I have considered all the materials and arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. I hold that there is no infirmity or irregularity, which necessitates interference by this Court. There is no patent error or perversity in the order of the Courts below. 18. For the above reason, this civil revision petition fails and is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The petitioners are granted three months time for vacating the premises and they are directed to file an affidavit of undertaking that they will vacate the premises within three months. If they failed to file such an affidavit of undertaking, they are not entitled to the three months time.