G. Kuthabaksh vs A.P. Samy

T. Sathiadev, J.—This revision is allowed on the simple ground that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have not disposed of

the petition granting relief to the Landlord, bearing in mind the obligation of the statutory authorities to give a definite finding about the bona fides of

the landlord. No doubt the petition has been ordered, consequent to the default committed by the tenant and I could see sufficient procrastination

in his attitude towards the proceedings. It cannot be said that the tenant has not delayed the disposal of the petition. There have been sufficient

materials to hold that he has prevented early consideration of the matter by both the authorities. Whatever be his attitude, when the petition is

allowed due to default committed by the tenant, and when it arises under the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, there is statutory obligation on the

statutory authorities to give a finding about the bona fide requirements of the landlord, even though the petition may be disposed of ex parte. In this

case, there is no reference made by the appellate authority about the bona fide requirements of the landlord, even though the petition may be

disposed of ex parte. In this case, there is no reference made by the appellate authority about the bona fides of the claim in the petition for eviction.

The Rent Controller no doubt has stated in the order as follows:

The petition is in list. Respondent called absent. Application filed for adjournment. Application rejected. Evidence is already on record. I am

satisfied that the respondent had committed wilful default. I am also satisfied that the petitioner required the building for demolition and

reconstruction.

It is apparent that the satisfaction which is said to have been derived by the Rent Controller is due to the absence of the respondent-tenant. He

cannot simply say that the evidence is already on record without himself considering the merits of the evidence that has been adduced. Even in a

case where the tenant is absent, there is an obligation on the statutory authorities to consider the evidence that is adduced by the landlord, and on,

the basis of the evidence so recorded, to give a finding whether there has been a wilful default as pleaded and whether there is bona fide

requirement for demolition and reconstruction. Unless the statutory authorities carry out such exercise and demonstrate in their orders that they

have exercised their minds, found out the bona fide of the requirement of the landlord, such orders cannot be sustained. It is precisely this that has

been held in T.M.P.C. Ramachandran v. A.M. Batcha and Anr. 1978 T.L.N.J. (S.C.) 21

In view of the above, the civil revision-petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Rent Controller who shall dispose of the matter

expeditiously, bearing in mind that has been laid down by the Supreme Court, and the order should be passed on the evidence on record and it

should give satisfactory reasons for the conclusion arrived at by him. Of Course, the tenant must be extended as opportunity to defend himself. The

civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.