Arumuga Naicker (died) and Others vs T.C. Baladhandayuthapani and Another

S.S. Subramani, J.—Tenant originally filed this revision, and after his death, his legal representatives have been brought on record, and they

have, further prosecuted the revision.

Eviction was ordered by the authorities below on the ground that the building is required by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction.

I heard this revision and dismissed the same as per my order dated 18.9.1996. Against my decision, the matter was taken before the Honorable

Supreme Court, and before the Honorable Supreme Court, a submission was made by the revision petitioners that during the pendency of the

revision, the original landlord has sold the property to a third party and the subsequent sale will have material bearing in the result of the revision

petition. It was also submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court that the tenants came to know about the same only after the disposal of the

revision. When such submission was made, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus:

Learned Counsel states that during the pendency of the revision petition before the High Court, the respondent/landlord sold the property in

dispute. According to the learned Counsel, with the sale of the property, the ground on which the eviction was based automatically became non-

est. Learned Counsel further states that he came to know about the sale after the judgment of the High Court. In the circumstances, the petitioner

may, if so advised, approach the High Court and bring the facts to the notice of the High Court. The SLP is dismissed as withdrawn.

After the dismissal of the S.L.P, a review application was filed by the tenants as Review Application No. 37 of 1997. As per my order dated

24.11.1997.1 allowed me review application and directed restoration of the C.R.P. back to file. Thereafter, the purchaser wanted to get himself

impleaded in the revision. Accordingly, as per order dated 27.1.1998. passed in C.M.P. No. 17676 of 1997, the purchaser S. Moula Mohideen

was impleaded as second respondent in the C.R.P.

Both the authorities below have come to the conclusion that the condition of the building is not good, and that it requires immediate demolition

and reconstruction. That is a finding of fact which does not require any interference by this Court, while exercising its revisional powers. The

original landlord has also filed an under taking that he is prepared to demolish the building within the time stipulated and start reconstruction of the

building.

Now that the original landlord has sold the property to the second respondent herein, the question to be considered is, whether the bona fides of

the original landlord will be sufficient to order eviction.

Similar question came for consideration before M. Srinivasan, J., as he men wan, in an application for impleading by a purchaser. The learned

Judge has held thus in S.V. Chidambara Pillai Vs. S.N.V.R.N. Subramaniam Chettiar and Others, :

...The bona fide requirement of the building as contemplated u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act has to be established by letting in evidence at the time of

hearing of the R.C.O.P. If before the matter is taken up for trial the landlord thinks that he cannot fight with the tenant as the matter was being

prolonged for years and sells the property to third parties, it is open to the third parties who have become the owners of the property to continue

the proceedings. It may be fort the purchasers to establish their bona fide requirement of the premises for the purposes of demolition and

reconstruction as contemplated u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. That is a matter which has to be considered at the time when evidence is let in by both the

parties in the R.C.O.P. It is open to the tenant to contend and comment during the trial that the purchasers have not proved their bona fides as

required by Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act if the purchasers fail to let in evidence to that effect.

I followed the aforesaid decision in the decision reported in 5. V. Periasamy and Sons and Ors. v. R. Senthil Kumar and Ors. (1997)1 L.W. 527.

In that case, in paragraph 27, I have held that in a petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, the bona fides proved by the

vendor will not be sufficient so far as the purchasers are concerned. The qualification of a vendor cannot be equated to that of a purchaser. Even if

the building requires demolition and reconstruction, whether the purchaser has got means and whether his claim continues to be bona fide, is a

matter which has to be investigate by the Rent Controller. In view of these decisions, I do not think that the decisions of the authorities below could

be sustained. I feel that the matter requires reconsideration.

Learned Counsel for second respondent submitted that he has produced all the documents to show that he has got sufficient means to proceed

with demolition and reconstruction, and that his claim is also bona fide. He has also undertaken to demolish the building and start the reconstruction

within the time stipulated. Therefore, it was submitted that the bona fides could be found this Court also.

In revision, I do think it will not be proper to take into consideration the documents without giving opportunity to the tenants to challenge the

same in cross-examination. They are also entitled to adduce counter evidence. If, I admit the documents submitted by the second respondent are

admitted in revision that will amount to denying the opportunity to the tenants.

Under the above circumstances, I feel that it is only proper that the matter be remanded to the appellate authority, who has also all the powers

of a Rent Controller, including the power to take evidence.

In the result, I set aside the orders of the authorities below, and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for the limited purpose of

recording a finding as to the bona fides of the purchaser in seeking eviction. The purchaser (2nd respondent herein) is allowed to let in evidence to

show that he has got means to put up a new construction within the time stipulated and also complied with the requirements that are necessary u/s

14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. After the second respondent adduces such evidence, opportunity shall be

given to the petitioners herein to rebut the case of the purchaser. The matter is remanded only for this limited purpose. The appellate authority shall

dispose of the matter before the courts close for summer recess, since this is an old matter. It is also directed to take the period for disposal, in all

its seriousness.

The revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. C.M.P. 6046 of 1997 is closed.