Ammal Pillai and Others vs Varadarajulu Complex

S.S. Subramani, J.—This revision petition is filed by the tenants in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1984, on the file of Rent Controller, Dindigul. Eviction

was sought against the petitioners on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

Initially in the eviction petition, when it was filed, there was no averment therein that the building is in a bad shape, or that it requires immediate

demolition and reconstruction. In the petition, it was originally stated that the landlords wanted to put up a building'' complex after demolishing the

entire structure. It is also alleged that the State Bank of India is intending to have their office in that building, and being an important locality, they

wanted to demolish the entire structure and put that area to better use. Later, by amendment, necessary averments that are required u/s 14(1)(b) of

the Rent Control Act were incorporated, and it was further contended that the Karur Vysya Bank has offered financial assistance of Rs. 15 lakhs

to the landlords for putting up construction and to make use of the structure for their use. They also contended that they have got the necessary

plan and licence, and they require eviction bona fide for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.

In the counter filed by the petitioners herein (tenants), they disputed the bona fides of the landlords, and by virtue of an amendment, raised a

contention that the respondents herein are not the landlords of the building but only in respect of the site. It was contended that the petitioner''s

grandfather initially put up a structure after getting a lease of the land, and thereafter the petitioners have put up the present structure in the

property. It was, therefore, stated that there is no landlord and tenant relationship in so far as the building is concerned. They further said that the

State Bank of India has shifted to some other building, and they do not require any premises in. that area and, therefore, the requirement alleged in

the petition has ceased to exist. They also said that the building is in a good shape and the same does not require demolition and reconstruction.

The Rent Controller held that since the State Bank of India has shifted their office from the premises to some other place, the requirement has

ceased to exist. It is further found by the Rent Controller that it cannot be said that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction in

the sense that the Commissioner who visited the property has not stated that it will collapse at any time or that it is in a dangerous condition. The

Rent Controller further found that if necessary repairs and maintenance is done, for some more years the building can lost. Rent Controller further

held that when P. W, 1 was examined, a suggestion was put to him as to whether the building was not constructed by the petitioner''s grandfather,

and since the suggestion was not denied the denial of title in so far as the superstructure is concerned, is bonafide For the above reasons, the

eviction petition was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the order of Rent Controller, landlords preferred R.C.A. No. 22 of 1993. The Appellate Authority reversed the order of Rent

Controller and allowed eviction.

While reversing the order, the appellate Authority, held that the denial of title now nit forward by the tenants is lacking in good faith. The

Appellate Authority took note of Ex. A-3, an application filed by the tenants themselves in R.C.O.P. No. 107 of 1982, seeking permission of the

Rent Controller, to deposit the rent in Court. The same was allowed. The Appellate Authority held that since the tenants themselves (i.e.

respondents before the Appellate Authority) had invoked the provisions of the Rent Control Act and wanted permission for depositing the rent in

Court thereby accepting the title of the landlords, the denial of title over the superstructure in the present proceedings can only be an afterthought.

The Appellate Authority said that in view of Ex. A-1, the said contention is barred by res judicata.

The Appellate Authority further found, on the basis of the Commissioner''s Report Ex. C-1 and Plan Ex. C-2, that the building is not in good

shape. It found that most of the windows are without any doors, the rafters have got damaged and portions of the walls have also developed

cracks. Under the above circumstances, the Appellate Authority said that the claim that the building requires demolition and reconstruction is bona

fide and the landlords have satisfied the other statutory requirements. Eviction was, therefore, allowed.

It is against the said judgment, the tenants have come up in revision.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners (tenants) submitted that in the eviction petition the requirement is stated as to accommodate the State Bank

of India, and if that requirement has ceased to exist, the necessity for demolition and reconstruction is also not available. It is the case of the

counsel that the State Bank of India has already shifted its Branch from that locality to another locality, and, in the eviction petition as it originally

stood, landlords did not say that the building requires demolition. The allegation was only, that to provide accommodation to the State Bank of

India, the entire building will have to be demolished, and they would to put up a building complex. This, according to the learned Counsel, is not a

requirement u/s 14(1)(h) of the Act.

I do not think die said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner can be accepted. May be, the requirement at the time of tiling the

petition was a need of the State Bank of India to have their Branch in that locality, and that requirement prompted the landlords to file eviction

petition. The requirement was that the building needs demolition and reconstruction. May be, after demolition and reconstruction, the State Bank of

India might have put up their own Branch. That is only a place for better use after demolition.

It is true that the State Bank of India had shifted to another portion in a building of their own. But that does not bar the landlords to get eviction

of the tenant from the building, on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. Ex. C-1 and C-2 are Report and

Plan give a vivid picture of the building. The Commissioner has not given a report that the building is in a dangerous condition, and it may collapse

at any time. That is not the standard that is required under the Rent Control Act. The condition of the building is one of the requirements, or we

may say that it is the major requirement, but that by itself alone is not enough. The locality where the building is situated, how far that particular area

can be put to better use if a modern building is put up, whether any developments have taken place and what are the economic advantages which

both parties can obtain if a new building is put up, are all matters of relevance, along with the physical condition of the building. When huge

amounts will have to be spent on repairs and maintenance, it will not be of any economic advantage from the view point of the landlord, though the

tenant may be satisfied with that requirement. When we consider the demolition arid reconstruction, the views of the landlord as owner of the

building are also of some importance.

Viewed from that angle, the Commissioner''s Report satisfies all the requirements under the Statute. The Commissioner has stated that the

building is not in good shape, though he has not certified that it is in a dangerous condition. We find from the Report that a huge amount will have to

be spent on repairs and age of the building also makes it clear that to keep it in good repair will not be economical. If a new building is put up in the

locality with modern amenities, the tenants can also take advantage of these amenities, and have better showroom. Naturally, that also will be an

attraction to customers, by which the landlord also will be benefited. On the basis of the Commissioner''s Report and the evidence of P.W. 1, it is

clear that the building requires demolition and reconstruction.

Regarding the financial ability of the landlords, apart from the evidence of P.W. 1, we have Ex. A-1, letter written by the Karur Vysya Bank

that they are ready to give necessary assistance for putting up a new construction. Law does not insist that for putting up a construction, the

landlord alone should invest the amount and that he must prove that he has got means. If there are persons to assist him financially, even then, it can

be said that the landlord has got the capacity to raise necessary funds. This condition is also satisfied. The rough plan is also filed by the landlords.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that even though licence was taken initially, landlords have allowed the same to lapse, and

that shows that they have no idea of putting up the construction.

I do not accept the said contention for various reasons. By merely filing a licence, the landlords cannot put up the construction. Authorities are

also made known at that time that there is a building, and that has to be demolished, and it is in the occupation of the tenant. Court can take judicial

notice of pendency of Rent Control Proceedings. Every year the licence will have to be renewed, and longer the pendency of the proceedings,

number of times the renewal will have to be made. By the time eviction is ordered, even the Rules for granting the licence would have changed, or

there may be many changes even in the locality itself, by acquisition or taking away of the property by erosion, etc. By merely filing a plan at the

time of filing of petition, nobody can be sure that on the basis of that plan, the landlord is going to put up construction therein. It is only for the

purpose of proving the bona fides, and to show his readiness to put up the construction, a Plan will have to be filed. By the action of the tenant, the

landlord is not in a position to get possession, and he has to allow the licence to lapse. The Court may not insist that every year the landlord should

get it renewed. After the eviction petition is filed, if the landlord is not taking steps for immediate demolition and reconstruction, the Act provides

the legal consequences. The argument of the learned Counsel is, therefore, rejected. I find that the building requires immediate demolition and

reconstruction, and the landlords have satisfied all the legal grounds. Once all the ingredients under the Section are satisfied, and there is no lack of

good faith, law presumes bona fides in their claim. I hold that the eviction petition was filed by the landlords in good faith, and the building requires

immediate demolition and reconstruction.

Even without going into the ground of demolition and reconstruction the tenant are liable to be evicted on another ground. In spite of Ex. A-3,

order which concludes the rights of parties, tenants have taken a contention that the superstructure did not belong to the landlords. That amounts to

denial of title over the building. Once Ex. A-3 concludes the rights, and in spite of the same, the tenants raise such a contention, which they fully

know as false, the said contention can be said to be only lacking in good faith. That by itself is a ground for ordering eviction. The landlords need

not be driven to another proceeding for the said purpose. I am supported to take that view in the light of the decision reported in Majati Subbarao

Vs. P.V.K. Krishna Rao (Deceased) by Lrs., where their lordships said that ''A denial of title in the course of eviction petition constitutes a ground

for eviction provided the denial is not bona fide and it is not necessary that in order to constitute a ground for eviction the denial of title must be

anterior to the filing of the eviction petition. To insist that a denial of title in the written statement can be taken advantage of only in a subsequent suit

to be filed by the landlord would only lead to unnecessary multiplicity of legal proceedings as the landlord would be obliged to file a second suit for

ejectment of the tenant on the ground of forfeiture entitled by the tenant''s denial of his character as a tenant in the written statement. Ex. A-3 is an

order obtained by the tenants themselves in a proceeding initiated by them, admitting that they are tenants in the building.

Learned Counsel submitted that he will withdraw that contention. I do not think that the subsequent withdrawal at this stage will be of any

benefit to the tenants. Once such a contention is withdrawn, that itself shows that the said contention was taken without any good faith. Further,

before the Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority, he wanted a decision on this point, and only when the tenants failed to get an order in

their favour, they now think of withdrawing the same before this Court. That also shows that there is lack of good faith in their contention.

In the result, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is confirmed. The revision petition is dismissed with costs.