G. Geetha, G. Sukumar and G. Suresh vs S.R. Krishnakumar, S.R. Lakshmi Narayanan and S.R. Muthian

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—The Judgment in R.C.A. No. 10 of 2007 which had arisen out of an order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 8

of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Tiruppathur is under challenge in C.R.P(NPD) No. 3993 of 2008.

The respondents in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2006 are the appellants in R.C.A. No. 10 of 2007. R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2006 was filed under Sections

10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Hereinafter referred to as ""Act"") by the landlord.

The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the basis of oral and documentary evidence let in before him had allowed the petition filed u/s

14(1)(b) of the Act and dismissed the petition in respect of the relief claimed under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act. Against the findings

in respect of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the respondents have preferred R.C.A. No. 10 of 2007 and Cross Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2008

was filed by the petitioners in respect of the findings regarding Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act by the learned Rent Controller.

The tenant has filed R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2006 u/s 8(5) of the Act permitting him to deposit the monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- into Court. The

learned Rent Controller had dismissed the said petition against which R.C.A. No. 11 of 2007 was preferred by the tenant. The learned Rent

Control Appellate Authority finding no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2006 had

dismissed R.C.A. No. 11 of 2007 confirming the orders of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2006 which is under challenge in

C.R.P.(NPD) No. 3994 of 2008. Against the order of dismissal of Cross Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2008 in R.C.A. No. 10 of 2007, the

respondents in R.C.A. No. 10 of 2007/landlords have preferred C.R.P(NPD) No. 3995 of 2008.

In all these revisions, the point to be determined is whether the landlords are entitled to get an order of eviction under Sections 10(2)(1) and

10(3)(c) and also u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act? and whether the tenants are liable to be allowed to deposit the rent in to the court u/s 8(5) of the Act?

The averments in the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2006 in brief are as follows:

The petitioners are the owners of the petition schedule building bearing Old D. No. 15, New D. No. 23, Krishnagiri Road, Thiruppathur Town

and the adjacent property which lies on the southern side of the schedule mentioned property. The first petitioner is carrying on business in

Departmental stores in the petition schedule building which was taken on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- in the year 1969 from S.K. Rajagopal, the

father of the petitioners. The original tenant of the petition schedule building was Sri. G. Gajendran, the father of respondents 2 and 3.

Subsequently, the rent was raised to Rs. 2000/- from the year 2002. The petitioners'' father S.K. Rajagopal had executed a Will in favour of the

petitioners on 14.6.1985 bequeathing the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioners. The father of the petitioners namely S.K.

Rajagopal died on 19.6.1985. Thereafter, the petitioners became the absolute owners of the petition schedule building. The first respondent G.

Geetha is the wife of the original tenant G. Gajendran and the second and third respondents are the sons of the first respondent and late Gajendran.

Gajendran was regularly paying the rent upto his death on 15.1.2001 to the first petitioner. After the death of Gajendran, the second respondent

was paying the rent continuously to the first petitioner. The second respondent is used to pay the rent amount of Rs. 2000/- to the petitioners and

the first petitioner used to endorse the receipt of the rent in a pocket note book which was produced by the second respondent. From 1.9.2004,

the respondents have wilfully failed to pay the rent due to the petitioners. The respondents are in possession and occupation of the petition

schedule building for more than 50 yeara. The petition schedule building is of 70 years old and it is in a dilapidated condition. The petitioners want

to demolish the entire building including the one in occupation of the respondents and the adjacent portion lies on the southern side of the schedule

mentioned property and want to construct a modern building for their own personal use after such construction. The petitioners are running a

business in medical shop and departmental stores in the name and style of ""Sakthi Medicals & Sakthi Departmental Stores"" in the rented premises

adjacent to the schedule mentioned property. The said medical shop and departmental stores are registered firms under Tamil Nadu General Sales

Tax Rules -1959 and the Central Sales Tax Rules 1957 in the name of the second petitioner. The first petitioner has got licence from Tiruppathur

Municipality and concerned authorities for running the departmental stores and the second and third petitioners have got licence to run medical

shop from the appropriate authorities. The petitioners want to develop their own business as an wholesale agents in Pharmaceuticals and

Departmental Stores business to increase their income . The petition schedule building is facing the main road in the heart of Tiruppathur town and

is most suitable for conducting and developing their own business. The petitioners require the schedule mentioned property under the occupation of

the respondents bonafide for their personal use and occupation after demolition and reconstruction. The petitioners have no other property of their

own except the petition schedule building and the adjacent property lies on the southern side of the schedule mentioned property. The petitioners

have sufficient funds for putting up new construction in the petition schedule building. The petitioners have also obtained permission for construction

of new building in the petition schedule property from the Commissioner of Tiruppathur Municipality and has also obtained approved plan. The

respondents have carried out major repairs without obtaining the prior permission and written consent from the petitioners. Even after the receipt of

the suit notice dated 14.12.2005, on the termination of tenancy with effect from the mid night of 15th February 2006, the respondents have altered

the entire roof of the schedule mentioned property by 35 new rafters and the roof tiles with an ulterior motive to cause loss and hardship and also

to reduce the value and age of the building. The petitioners undertake to commence the work of demolition within one month from the date of

obtaining possession and to complete the work of reconstruction before the expiry of three months from the date of recovery of possession. Hence

the suit premises is required for demolition and reconstruction also. For the notice sent by the petitioners, the respondents have sent a reply dated

21.12.2005 with frivolous allegations. Hence the petition.

In the counter by the second respondent adopted by the respondents 1 and 3, the respondents would allege that there was no jural relationship

of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents exists. The petitioners father S.K. Rajagopal was the owner of the petition

schedule building and the first respondent''s husband and the father of respondents 2 and 3 viz., Mr. G. Gajendran came down to Tiruppathur to

Ambur Town in the year 1966-67 for his livelihood, settled at Thiruppathur and started ""Gajendran Engineering Works"" in the petition schedule

building bearing door No. 15 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. M.G. Gajendran had also obtained licence from the Department of Small Scale

Industries, Government of Tamil Nadu, under the name and style of ""Sukumar Engineering Works"". At the inception of the said Engineering

Works, the said Gajendran used oil engine to operate the machines. After obtaining the licence , the said M.G. Gajendran applied for an Electric

Service Connection to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 4.10.1968 and paid the caution deposit of Rs. 200/- to the Electricity Board and the

Electricity Board sanctioned the service connection under the category of Industrial Tariff bearing service connection No. 3696 on 23.11.1968 in

the name of M.G. Gajendran. The present service connection number is AO4/828. The said M.G. Gajendran slowly developed his industry and at

present there are four lathe machine, two grinding machine, one welding set , one shaping machine, two drilling machine, hydralic machine and one

generator in the industry and nearly ten workers are working in the industry situated in the petition schedule building. Without any default, the rent

for the suit premises has been paid by M.G. Gajendran regularly. But the landlord is not in the habit of giving any receipt for the payment of rent.

The property tax was also paid only by M.G. Gajendran. The landlord never attended to the minor repairs in the building from the date of

inception. A sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid by the tenant towards advance. The rent was gradually increased from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2000/- in the

month of December 2000. After the death of M.G. Gajendran on 16.1.2001, the rent was paid by the respondents to the first petitioner. After the

death of the original landlord S.K. Rajagopal, the first petitioner used to collect the monthly rent from the tenant and he is also not in the habit of

giving any receipt for the rent paid by the tenants. Even after the death of M.G. Gajendran, the second respondent is continuing the industry and he

is paying the monthly rent to the first petitioner from February 2001 and also paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as an additional advance to the first

petitioner without any default till date. There was no endorsement made by the petitioners in a pocket note book for the rent paid by the

respondents as alleged in the petition. There was no fault much less wilful default committed by the respondents in payment of rent. The

respondents have paid the monthly rent till November 2005. When the rent for December 2005 was tendered by the second respondent, the first

petitioner had refused to receive the same with an evil intention to create a ground of default in payment of rent to evict the tenant from the petition

schedule building. The second respondent sent money order for a sum of Rs. 1000/- towards the rent for the month of December 2005 to the first

petitioner which was returned as refused to receive. Again, the second respondent sent money order for Rs. 2000/- being the rent for the month of

December 2005 and January 2006 which was also returned as refused. Hence the legal notice was sent by the second respondent to the first

petitioner to mention the mode of payment of rent to them and notice was served upon them but no reply was received from the petitioners.

Thereafter, the first respondent sent a money order for Rs. 3000/- being the rent for the months of December 2005, January and February 2006

which was also returned as refused. Hence the second respondent has filed a petition u/s 8(5) of the Act under H.R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2006 and

regularly depositing the monthly rent after due notice to the counsel appearing for the respondents in that petition and there is no any arrears of rent

till date. Since the first petitioner was collecting the rent, after the death of M.G. Gajendran, the respondents are paying the rent continuously to the

first petitioner. Hence the claim of the petitioners that the respondent have committed wilful default has no leg to stand. The petitioners were

previously carrying on business for selling medicines under the name and style of ""Sakthi Medicals"" and they shifted it to the departmental store

itself and continuing the business in that premises and the building is now vacant. Apart from that shop bearing door No. 16, new Door No. 11/D

the petitioners are having nearly eighteen shops of their own bearing door No. 11/D,19/1,19/3,19/4,19/5,19/6,19/7,19/8,12/17,13/19,14/2,

15/23 and 15/25 out of which the petitioners are in possession of eight buildings and other buildings are rented out for several tenants. The

petitioners are running a Departmental Store, Rani Cool Drinks Bar in their own buildings. The petitioners evicted a tenant who carried on

Ambika Ice Factory"" under the pretext that they will construct the building and give it to him for rent but they failed to do so and leased it to some

other person and the tenant filed a suit as against the petitioners. In the same manner, the petitioners tried to evict another tenant in Door No. 14

and he also filed a suit. The deceased M.G. Gajendran along with others carried on a Finance Corporation in the name and style of ""New Finance

Corporation"" in the premises belonged to the petitioners and the petitioners requested them to vacate the premises for demolition and

reconstruction with an undertaking that they will lease it out to them after reconstruction, but the petitioners leased it to a third party who is carrying

on business under the name and style ""Sankar Machinery Stores"" in that premises. It is the usual practice of the petitioners to demand higher rent

and advance and if the tenants refused to accept their demand and the petitioners will issue notice as if there is arrears of rent taking advantage of

non issuing of receipts for the payment of rent by the petitioners. The petitioners have also closed the well in the petition mentioned property since

it affects his another building as per ""Vastu Sashtra"" and agreed to provide water from ""Raja Complex"" belongs to the petitioners but they have not

provided them any alternative arrangement for the respondents to get drinking water. The respondents are making minor repairs from the date of

inception of the tenancy in the petition schedule building and are getting the building in good condition. The petitioners try to demolish the well and

roof of the petition mentioned property with an evil intention to cause damages to the building but the second respondent managed to curtail their

illegal action by filing a suit on the file of this Court in O.S. No. 27 of 2006 and obtained an order of injunction against the petitioners not to cause

damages to the building and the suit is pending. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

R.C.A. No. 11 of 2006 was filed by the respondents against the order in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2006 which was filed u/s 8(5) of the Act. In the

said petition the petitioners would contend that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid towards advance and the rent was increased from Rs. 750/- to Rs.

1000/- and that the rent was regularly paid by the petitioners/tenants till November 2005. But, the respondents/landlords refused to receive the

rent for the month of December 2005, with the evil intention to evict the petitioners/tenants. After the refusal of the landlord for December 2005,

the petitioners/tenants had sent the rent due for the month of December 2005 and January 2006 (Rs. 2000/-) on 06.02.2006 by money order,

which was also returned as refused. Hence, a notice issued by the petitioners/tenants dated 13.02.2006 calling upon the respondents/landlords to

intimate the mode of payment of rent to them. The said notice was received by the respondents/landlords but they have not chosen to send any

reply. Again on 06.03.2006, the petitioners sent a sum of Rs. 3000/- being the rent for the months of December 2005, January 2006 and

February 2006, which was also returned to the petitioners. The rent due to the month of December 2005, January 2006 and February 2006 was

also subsequently sent by money order to the respondents/landlords by the petitioners/tenant after deducting the money order commission. Hence,

the petition to permit the petitioners to deposit the monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- for the petition schedule building into the Court.

The respondents in their counter would contend that since the petitioners have committed wilful default in payment of rent, the petition is not

maintainable. Already the petitioners have filed H.R.C.O.P No. 8/2006 for eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default, besides on other

grounds. The petitioners are paying the admitted rent at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month from 01.10.2002 till 30.08.2004. From 01.09.2004 the

petitioner/tenants have committed wilful default in payment of rent. At no point of time the petitioners have paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/-

per month. The rent was paid by Sukumar Engineering Works at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month, upto February 2002. Then it was enhanced at

the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month from 01.03.2002. And the same was paid by Sukumar Engineering Works, till 01.09.2002. Thereafter, from

01.10.2002, the rent was enhanced at the rate of Rs. 2000/- and the petitioners/tenants had paid the admitted enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.

2000/- from 01.10.2002 to 30.08.2004 and thereafter committed default in payment of rent. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Before the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2006, the first petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining the

qualified Engineer as P.W.2 who had accompanied the Advocate Commissioner to note down the condition of the building and exhibited Exs P1

to P13 and Exs C1 to C4 were marked. On the side of the respondents, the second respondent was examined as R.W.1. The petitioner in

R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2006 was examined as P.W.1 and one P.S. Kamalakannan was examinend as P.W.2 and Exs P1 to P11 were marked. The

first respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2006 was examined as R.W.1 and Exs R1 to R3 were marked.

After taking into consideration , the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties, the learned trial Judge in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2006

has after accepting Exs C1 to C4 and also the stability certificate issued by P.W.2 in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2006 held that the condition of the

petition schedule building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction had allowed R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2006 u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act but

dismissed the petition in respect of the relief asked for under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act. On an appeal, the learned Rent Control

Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 10/2007 had confirmed the order of eviction by the learned Rent Controller u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act and also

allowed the appeal in respect of the relief asked for by the landlord in respect of Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act. Against which

C.R.P(NPD) No. 3993 of 2008 has been preferred by the tenants/revision petitioners.

In R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 2006 which was filed u/s 8(5) of the Act by the tenants both the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent

Control Appellate Authority have concurrently held that the tenants are not entitled to any relief u/s 8(5) of the Act have dismissed the claim of the

tenants which necessitated the tenants to prefer C.R.P(NPD) No. 3994 of 2008. As against the dismissal of the claim under Sections 10(2)(1) and

10(3)(c) of the Act by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 10 of 2007, a cross appeal No. 3 of 2008 was filed in R.C.A. No. 10 of

2007 by the landlords which was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority against which the landlords have preferred C.R.P.

(NPD) No. 3995/2008.

Heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners in C.R.P(NPD) No. 3993/2008/landlords.

According to the learned Senior counsel, without properly considering Exs C1 to C4, the learned Rent Controller had allowed the petition filed by

the landlords for eviction u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act holding that the building is in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition and

reconstruction and that the cross appeal filed by the tenants, in cross Rent Control Appeal No. 3/2008 in R.C.A. No. 10/2007 was also dismissed

by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority without adverting to the fact that the petition schedule building is in a good condition in which the

tenants are running a machinery shop with more than five heavy machineries.

The learned Senior Counsel would attack the orders of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2006 only on the ground that some

of the tiles in the petition schedule building are broken and there are some cracks in the wall of the building, the learned Rent Control Appellate

Authority has come to an erroneous conclusion that the petition schedule building is in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition.

Further the learned Senior counsel would attack the evidence of P.W.2 that he is not a qualified Engineer to give any opinion about the stability of

the building but since he is only working as a valuer of the building for State Bank of Travancore and other banks like Canara Bank, Indian Bank,

Punjab National Bank and that the stability certificate issued by P.W.2 cannot be given credit to or important can be attached to the same. In

support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relying on a decision of this Court reported in Gurunathan v. T. Krishnappa 2007 (2) CTC

The facts of the case are that the landlord has filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 23/1999 u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act and the learned rent controller had

ordered the petition for eviction. The learned rent control appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the learned rent

controller in H.R.C.O.P. No. 23/1999. But in the Commissioner''s report which was marked as Ex. C-3, the Engineer/Commissioner had

observed that the main building is in good condition and only the country wood roof timber are lightly damaged and the building requires any

immediate repair or demolition. The said fact was not brought either before the learned rent controller or before the learned rent control authority in

that case. So, on the basis of the report Ex.C-3 filed by the Engineer/Commissioner this Court had set aside the orders of the learned rent

controller as well as the rent control authority ordering eviction u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. But now, in the present case the facts are different. The

Stability Certificate issued by P.W 2 Arularasan, a qualified Engineer shows that the age of the building by physical appearance says that it will be

around 50 years and that the Mangalore tiled building roof will be only 35 years old and new wooden rafters were erected along the old damaged

wooden trusses and wall plastering etc. and that the building is withstanding only with temporary measures taken by the occupants/tenants. He

further observed in his Stability Certificate that in the entry point several cracks were found which may cause serious structural weakness and

Seepage and dampness on the walls are found in several places which will cause damage to the walls thereby the building may collapse. While

describing about the strength of the building, PW.2/qualified Engineer has stated in his Stability Certificate that the building roof is also getting

deteriorated naturally due to the age of the building, several wooden trusses are deteriorated (decayed) due to its age, Mangalore tiles were also

broken in several places and on the upper side of the roof in vicinity it is getting undulations due to sinking of the roof. Further, he has opined that it

is better to demolish the existing old building as early as possible and new structure is to be built as per the local planning authorities. Further

P.W.2 was summoned by the Court/learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Tirupputhur in I.A. No. 15 of 2006 to assist the advocate

commissioner in filing his report. He has also declared in his report that he has inspected the property on 20.10.2006. The photographs filed by the

Commissioner along with Ex C1 shows the bad condition of the building. The Commissioner has also in his report Ex C1 would state that the

petition schedule building is standing only with the temporary supports like steel tubular posts and new wooden rafters along with old damaged

wooden trusses and some two places steels have been given wooden supports. In the chief examination P.W.2 (in his affidavit) has stated that the

condition of the building is very bad and only due to the steel and wooden temporary support given in the building, the building is withstanding. He

has further sworn in his affidavit that the entire roof is down due to unbearable weight of the tiles and rafters and that at any time, the building will

collapse.

Both the Courts below have taking into consideration, the evidence of P.W.2/qualified Engineer coupled with the evidence of Exs C1 to C4

report and photographs produced by the learned Advocate Commissioner come to an unassailable conclusion that the petition schedule building

requires immediate demolition and reconstruction ordered for eviction of the tenants u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act to show that the findings of the Courts

below are perverse in nature and they fail to consider the materials placed before them under arriving at a conclusion that the landlords/petitioners

are entitled to the relief asked for u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. Hence the Judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 10

of 2007 for the relief u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act is to be confirmed in these revisions and the same is hereby confirmed.

The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 10 of 2007 has also allowed the relief asked for by the petitioners/landlords in

R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2006 under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act. It is the case of the landlords that they are running their business in the

name and style of ""Sakthi Medical Shop"" and ""Sakthi Departmental Stores"" and that they have also obtained required licence under Exs P6 to P8

and that they have also obtained permit from the Commissioner of Municipality for putting up new construction for the petition schedule building

within three years from 23.9.2005.

The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners in C.R.P(NPD) No. 3993 of 2008 would contend that the learned Rent Controller has

rejected the claim of the landlords u/s 10(3)(c) of the Act on the ground that even in his evidence P.W.1 would clearly admitted that even after

getting the possession of the building wherein the Ambika Ice Factor was conducted from the tenant therein, the petitioners/landlords have failed to

open their proposed Medical shop in the said building. But they are conducting only Departmental Stores in the said building and that another

building which is fell vacant after the tenant by name Gandhi vacated the building was also rented out by the petitioners and these two facts were

taking into consideration by the learned Rent Controller while negativing the claim of the landlords u/s 10(3)(c) of the Act in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of

2006, but the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority only on the ground that after taking possession of Ambika Ice Factory and the building

which was under the occupation of Gandhi, the landlords have rented out those buildings to other tenants and hence the requirement of the petition

schedule building for their own use u/s 10(3)(c) of the Act had allowed the appeal in R.C.A. No. 11 of 2007 in respect of the relief asked for by

the landlords u/s 10(3)(c) of the Act also.

Section 10(3)(c) of the Act runs as follows:

A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non residential may, notwithstanding anything contained in Clause(a)

apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord

in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes, or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as

the case may be.

There is no material placed before the Courts below to show that the petition schedule building under the occupation of the tenants forms part of

the building in which the landlords are also running their business.

A perusal of Ex C1 report will also go to show that the petition schedule building is in Door No. 15/23 wherein the tenant is running his

Engineering Works in the name and style of ""Sukumar Engineering Works"". It is a separate building. The landlords/petitioners in R.C.O.P. No. 8

of 2006 is admittedly having about 8 buildings of their own adjacent to the petition schedule building. The Medical shop and the Departmental

Stores run by the landlords are also in a separate building and it is not a part of the petition schedule building wherein the tenants are having their

Engineering works. Under such circumstances, the petition filed u/s 10(3)(c) of the Act itself is not maintainable.

Coming to the relief u/s 10(2)(1) of the Act, it is the bounden duty of the landlords to show prima facie that the tenants have committed wilful

default in payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of evidence has come to a definite conclusion that upto November 2005, the

rent has been paid by the tenants and when December 2005 rent was sent by the tenants by money order, the same was refused to receive by the

landlords. P.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that the notice itself was sent by the landlords only after 15 months rent become due. u/s 10(2)(1) of

the Act only if the tenants commit default in payment of rent even after a continuous period of two months, after the receipt of the notice, then only

the default is to be construed as wilful. There is absolutely no evidence let in on the side of the landlords to show that even after the receipt of the

notice, the tenants had committed default in payment of rent for a continuous period of two months. Under such circumstances, as rightly held by

the learned Rent Controller, the default committed by the tenants in payment of rent, if any, cannot be construed as wilful.

Mr. V. Lakshminarayan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that only on the basis of the Commissioner''s

report Ex C1 coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 a qualified Engineer both the Courts below have come to a correct conclusion that the tenants

are liable to be evicted u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act since the petition schedule building is in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition and

reconstruction. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on a decision reported in S. Venugopal Vs. A. Karruppusami and Another,

wherein in a case of similar nature, the Honourable Apex Court have held as follows:

On the question of demolition and reconstruction of the premises in question, much was sought to be made out of the fact that the condition of the

building had not been ascertained and, while according to the tenants it was not in a dilapidated condition, according to the landlord it was in a

dilapidated condition. We do not attach much importance to the question as to whether the building was or was not in a dilapidated condition

because Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short ""the Act"") contemplates a building which is

bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it, and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a

new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. Therefore, Section 14(1)(b) does not contemplate that the building sought to be

demolished must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition. Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose

of erecting a new building on the same site.. . . . . .It is true that in granting permission u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, all relevant materials for recording a

finding about the requirement of the landlord for demolishing the building and reconstruction of a new building have to be taken into account. The

Rent Controller reached the conclusion that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction of a new building. This

Court has observed in Vijay Singh. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal that the Court must take into account the bona fide intention of the landlord, the age

and condition of the building, and the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. These are some of the illustrative

factors which have to be taken into account and they are by no means conclusive.

As far as CRP. No. 3994 of 2008 is concerned the relief u/s 8(5) of the Act cannot be granted in favour of the tenants, because it is the case

of the landlords that upto 1.9.2004 the monthly rent for the petition scheduled building was paid by the Tenants at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per

month from 1.10.2002 and thereafter 15 months rent was not paid by the tenants from 1.9.2004. In the absence of any documentary evidence the

Rent Control Appellate Authority has come to a conclusion that the rent for the building should be Rs. 2,000/- per month, but has come to a

conclusion that the relief u/s 8(5) of the Act cannot be granted in favour of the tenant, to permit them to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-

per month since the appellate authority has come to a conclusion that the rent must be Rs. 2,000/- per month. But without any evidence the rent

control appellate authority has held that the rent for the building is Rs. 2,000/- which is in dispute to be decided separately. The learned Rent

Controller on the ground that he has ordered eviction on the ground of Section 14(1)(b) , the tenant need not be allowed to deposit the rent into

Court u/s 8(5) of the Act has dismissed RCOP. No. 11 of 2006. The findings of the learned Rent Controller were confirmed in RCA. No. 11 of

2007 but on the other grounds as referred to above. There is no material placed to show that the findings of the Courts below are perverse in

nature. The remedy open to the landlords is to file a suit for arrears of rent after proving the same whether it was Rs. 1,000/- per month or Rs.

2,000/- per month by adducing evidence. Under such circumstances, the tenant is not entitled to the relief u/s 8(5) of the Act.

In fine, C.R.P.(NPD) No. 3993 of 2008 is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in respect of its

concurrent findings u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act and the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No. 10 of 2007 in respect of

the relief under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act are hereby set aside and the findings of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 8

of 2006 in respect of the relief u/s 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act is confirmed. C.R.P.(NPD) No. 3995 of 2008 is allowed and the findings of

the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No. 10 of 2007 in respect of the relief under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act is

herby set aside and also R.C.A. No. 8 of 2006 is dismissed in respect of the relief asked for under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act

alone and confirmed in respect of the relief granted u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. C.R.P.(NPD) No. 3994 of 2008 is dismissed and the findings of the

learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No. 11 of 2007 is confirmed. What is the rent per month is to be decided in the suit for arrears

of rent to be filed by the landlords. Time for vacating the premises by the tenants are two months from today. No costs. Connected M.P. No. 1 of

2008 is closed.