Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4612 (MAD)

T. S. Unnamalai Ammal v. Mohana Bai (Died)

2014-12-17

K.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2014
ORDER This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned VIII Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Court of Small Causes Chennai in RCA.No.556 of 2009. 2. The petitioners in the revision are the landlords. They filed eviction petition against the respondents in RCOP.No.1478 of 2008 under Section 14(i)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, contending that they require the petition premises as the building is very old building aged about more than 60 years, that the building is in very dilapidated and bad condition; that the petition premises is not yielding proper income; at the same time the property is located in a very busy and precise locality, where multistory buildings and complexes have come up in the neighbourhood. The landlords have further stated that they have planned to demolish and reconstruct and in fact they have also given undertaking to substantially commence the work of demolishing the material portion of the building and within three months the entire building. 3. The application was resisted by the respondents stating that the requirement is not bonafide and the building is in good condition. It is further stated that the earlier they filed application for fixation of fair rent and subsequently, the tenant has also filed a petition under Section 8(5) of the Lease and Rent Control Act and after the landlords having agreed to receive the rent, the petition was closed. 4. The parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. The learned rent controller having found that the requirement was bonafide, ordered eviction. Challenging the order the tenant filed an appeal in RCA.No.556 of 2009. The learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision has been filed. 5. Heard Mr.K.Ashok learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Rent Controller having been satisfied with the evidence produced by the landlord, ordered eviction, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority over turned the finding of the Rent Controller on the only ground that the landlords have not produced the sanction plan as per the undertaking given in the evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that even as per the tenant, the building is more than 60 years and it was constructed with brick in lime mortor. The learned counsel further submitted that even as per the tenant, the building is more than 60 years and it was constructed with brick in lime mortor. Ex.R2 photos, would show that there were cracks in the building which requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment reported in 2004 3 MLJ 160 [K.S.Ramu (died) v. Mrs.Rukmani Sundaram] and submitted that the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that the sanction plan was not produced by the landlords. 7. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that earlier petition filed by the landlords for fixation of fair rent and Section 8(5) petition, filed by the tenant would show that both the landlord and tenant were not in good terms. The landlords in their petition has given undertaking that they would shortly apply for a sanction plan for demolishing and reconstruction of the petition premises. But even after conclusion of the trial the landlords have not applied for the sanction plan which shows that the application was filed with an oblique motive to evict the tenants. It is further submitted that the other co-owners of the petition premises were not impleaded in the eviction petition. 8. The main contention of the landlords is that the building is more than 60 years old, but the tenant contended that the building is 45 years old. It is further revealed that under two sale deeds the landlords have purchased the property, in which it is stated that the buildings were in existence even in the year 1955. The Rent Controller referring to the evidence of PW2 and Ex.P2 has held that the building is more than 50 years. Ex.R1 report of the Engineer would show that the building was constructed by using brick in lime mortor and by using cement. RW1, engineer appointed by the tenant has stated that there is no horizontal crack but vertical cracks are found at first floor. Ex.R2 photographs produced by the respondent would reveal that there were patch and repair works done. The Rent Controller referring to Ex.R2 held that there have been damages in the walls. Further RW2 tenant himself admitted that once in two years he is regularly carrying on repairing works at his cost. 9. Ex.R2 photographs produced by the respondent would reveal that there were patch and repair works done. The Rent Controller referring to Ex.R2 held that there have been damages in the walls. Further RW2 tenant himself admitted that once in two years he is regularly carrying on repairing works at his cost. 9. The learned Rent Controller relied on the judgment reported in [S.Saraswathiammal (Deceased and two others v. R.S.Mallikarjun Raja and two others] and held that the building need not be in dilapidated or any dangerous condition for ordering a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. This court in the above judgment has held that the demolition could be ordered if the landlord has proved his means and bonafideness. 10. Ex.R1 photograph, shows that adjacent buildings are apartments which are newly constructed. RW.2 in his cross examination also admitted that new buildings are constructed near the petition building. The landlord has given evidence stating that they have sufficient means for demolishing the petition premises and put up new building. The landlords have also produced documentary evidence to show that they were having Rs.6 lakhs in the Bank deposit. The Rent Controller has relied on the judgment reported in 1998 1 MLJ 496 [R.Balasubramaniam alias Palaniappan rep. By Power Agent M.Arumugham v. Waran], in which it has been held that there is no need for the landlord to place the entire liquid cash before the court. The Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P4 held that the landlords have proved their means and bonafideness, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority has set aside the order of the Rent Controller on the only ground that the landlords failed to produce the sanction plan for demolition and reconstruction before the court. 11. This court in the judgment reported in 2004 (3) MLJ 160 have held that if the landlord proves that the petition premises is in a dilapidated condition and if the landlords have possessed money to put up a construction, the landlord would not be disentitled to get an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, on the ground of non production of the sanction plan. 12. In my considered opinion, the landlords have proved their bonafide requirement for demolition and reconstruction of the petition premises. 12. In my considered opinion, the landlords have proved their bonafide requirement for demolition and reconstruction of the petition premises. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has set aside the order of the Rent Controller without considering the materials evidence available on record. In the light of the judgments referred supra the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. 13. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed in RCA.No.556 of 2009 by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the order dated 18.11.2009 in RCOP.No.1472 of 2008 is restored. The tenant shall vacate and hand over the possession of the petition premises to the landlord on or before 31st May 2015. No costs.