Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1111 (MAD)

A. P. N. B. Aravendan v. B. Ravi

2025-02-24

G.ILANGOVAN

body2025
ORDER : G.Ilangovan, J. This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 25.07.2023, passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar and the order and decree dated 19.09.2018 passed in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2015, on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Virudhunagar. 2.The facts in brief: R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2015 was filed by the respondent seeking the relief of eviction under Section 14 (1) (b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control on the following facts and circumstances. 2.1. The original rent was Rs.1,500/- per month. It was agreed that the Rent must be paid on or before 5 th of succeeding month. Apart from that it is also admitted that the tenant should not sublease the property and other usual conditions were imposed. 2.2. The buildings bearing door No.18 to 20 situated on the north and south belongs to him. All the three buildings are aged about 100 years. Construction is also old; Put up with lime mortar and sithukal. There is heavy cracks in the building. 2.3. Previously he was working in Kerala. After retirement he wants to put up new construction by demolishing the present structure for his own occupation. Two tenants namely on the north and south vacated the building. In spite of the request made by him, revision petitioner did not vacate the premises. 2.4. Now he is working in a private concern as Manager and getting a monthly salary Rs.80,000/-. His wife is also self employed. Apart from that his son is also employed in a private concern and so he is having sufficient fund for demolishing and reconstructing the premises. He has also given undertaking that within three months he will demolish and reconstruct. 3.It was resisted by the revision petitioner stating that the intention of the respondent herein is to evict him at any cost. The condition of the building as stated by the respondent is also denied. It is located in a very small lane area. There is no proper access for the vehicles. The landlord was insisting upon the revision petitioner to purchase the building. Because of difference of opinion regarding the purchase price this petition is filed. 4.At the conclusion of the enquiry process, the Rent Controller allowed the petition. Against which R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed by the revision petitioner. There is no proper access for the vehicles. The landlord was insisting upon the revision petitioner to purchase the building. Because of difference of opinion regarding the purchase price this petition is filed. 4.At the conclusion of the enquiry process, the Rent Controller allowed the petition. Against which R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed by the revision petitioner. It concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Against which this revision is preferred. 5.Heard both sides. 6.Now let us straight away go to the Commissioner Report, wherein, we find the following findings. 7.The chartered civil engineer assisted the Commissioner to value the age of the building and the structure. As per his opinion the age of the building is 77 years; Normal life span of a building with the specifications mentioned in his report will be 60 years. So according to him, the building out lived its life span. But the building looks good. But it can fall at any time. Now this Commissioner report prima facie does indicate that the age of the building is more than 77 years built with lime mortar and old bricks. Even though it is stated by the respondent that crackers developed, but Commissioner report does not indicate. Though the structure of the building looks good, but, it may fall at any time because of the old age. 8.Now we will go to the evidence of the Commissioner. He was examined as PW2. He reiterated his findings in the evidence. Nothing was brought on record by cross examination to discredit his evidence and findings. It has been simply suggested to him that no scientific evaluation was done by him. 9.Only on the ground of the age of the building, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority ordered eviction. Whether any thing is required to be interfered by this revisional court is the only point to be considered. 10.Even at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that no cracks have developed in the building. No undertaking affidavit was filed by the respondent herein. No scientific assessment or evaluation was taken. 11.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the age of the building itself is sufficient enough to order demolition and reconstruction. He referred to the judgment of this Court S.Venugopal Vs. No undertaking affidavit was filed by the respondent herein. No scientific assessment or evaluation was taken. 11.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the age of the building itself is sufficient enough to order demolition and reconstruction. He referred to the judgment of this Court S.Venugopal Vs. A.Karuppasamy and another reported in 2006 (2) CTC 615, wherein it is stated as follows: “As regards bonafide requirement for demolition and reconstruction it was held that conditions of building is no material when the landlord wants to demolish owned structure in order to build multistoried building so as to get better return of investmentlandlord had already applied for and obtained planning permission – not giving details regarding funds for construction held will not militate against his claim since raising funds for constructing commercial structure is not difficult as Bank and Financial Institution are willing to advance such funds.” 12.He would also rely upon the Judgment of this Court passed in the case of f Alauddin Sahit Vs. R.Jothi reported in 2015 (1) TLNJ 602 (Civil) , wherein it is stated as follows: “Held in an application for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, Court has to see (i)bonafide intention of landlord (ii)age of building and (iii)financial position of landlord to put up new construction- obtaining approved building plan is not a pre-condition for ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction- further, the tenant not disputed the factum and business carried on by landlord-petition for demolition and reconstruction cannot be dismissed only the ground that landlord had not established means” 13.Further he would submit that it is not necessary that the building must be in the danger of developing cracks in the immediate. He would further refer to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of S.Saraswathiammal and others v.R.S.Mallikarjun Raja and two others reported in 1997-2-L.W. 287 , wherein it is stated as follows: “ It is well settled that the building is not be in a dilapidated condition or in a dangerous state of affairs for ordering a petition under Section 14(1) (b) of the Act. In this case, the landlady has proved that she is having sufficient money to construct the building and she has filed necessary plan to show that she is going to construct the building in the demolished portion so as to enable the sons to divide the properties. In this case, the landlady has given an undertaking that she will demolish the building and commence the construction of the building and within a particular period. If she fails to do so, the tenant can seek restitution under the Act.” 14.He would submit that other circumstances may also be taken into account. The tenants on the north and south bearing door Nos.18 and 20 have vacated the building at his request. Now only this revision petitioner is not willing and causing trouble. So according to him, when the facts indicates the genuineness on the part of the respondent, no interference may be called for by this Revisional court on the filmsy ground mentioned in the revision. 15.Unless there is perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority no interference can be made by this Court. As mentioned above, the very age of the building itself is sufficient enough for vacating the premises. The non giving of undertaking by the revision petitioner in the form of affidavit need not be given importance. In the petition itself, he has given an undertaking, that is enough. The financial position of the revision petitioner is also not in disputed by the revision petitioner. So the genuineness on the part of the respondent herein seek eviction cannot be doubted on any ground. So, I am of the considered view that it is not the fittest case to interfere into the order. I find absolutely no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority. So the revision deserves to be dismissed. 16.Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.