Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3371 (MAD)

V. Selvam v. G. Chinnaraj

2015-10-13

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
ORDER : The revision petitioner is the tenant and the first respondent herein is the landlord. The first respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2006 on the file of Rent Controller, Kanchipuram for eviction on the ground of willful default, demolition and re-construction under Section 10(2)(1) & 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 2. By an order dated 18.11.2011, the Rent Controller allowed R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2006 accepting the plea of demolition and re-construction and ordered eviction. 3. The revision petitioner, thereafter, filed R.C.A.No.3 of 2012 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kanchipuram. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by judgment, dated 11.08.2015. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this revision petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the building is not in a dilapidated condition and hence, the plea of landlord for demolition and reconstruction would not arise. 6. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority held that the building is more than 80 years old and the landlord need not establish that the building is in a dilapidated condition for demolition and reconstruction. Section 14(i)(b) of the Act nowhere states that landlord shall establish that the building is in a dilapidated condition, while seeking for demolition and reconstruction. 7. It is useful to extract the following passages in paragraph 15 of the judgment dated 11.08.2015 :- "...Further, the counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted the citations reported in 1999 MLJ Page 237 in the case of Kulandaisamy rep. by his Power of Attorney agent Susaikanni Vs. S.Santhanam and another and 2) (2010) 1 MLJ 500 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of J.Josephine Christober Vs. P.Subramanian, are squarely applicable to facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. The above said citations relied by the respondent/landlord whose that the landlord has every right to demolish the old building and put up new construction with modern facilities. Hence, in these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent/landlord's bonafide requirement is proved by way of oral and documentary evidence beyond reasonable doubt and thereby this Rent Control Appeal has to be dismissed by confirming the order and decreetal order of the Rent Controller." 8. I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed 9. I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed 9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed an undertaking affidavit of the petitioner. In the said undertaking, the petitioner agreed to vacate the premises on or before 31.03.2017 and has also undertaken to pay rent every month without any default until he vacates. D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J., 10. In such circumstances, the revision petitioner shall handover the premises on or before 31.03.2017 as per the undertaking and shall also pay future rents without any default. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.