Mehsin Bhai vs Hale and Co., Madras

Anantanarayanan, J.—I am fully convinced that the learned Second Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, had every justification for

allowing the appeal by the tenant with regard to the building which was owned by the landlord (revision petitioner), and in respect of which the

landlord had obtained an order of eviction in the first Court upon the basis of S. 14 (3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act

XVIII of 1960, namely,

that the building 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.

The learned Judge refers to the evidence, and points out that this building has been in existence for some time, and that, according to qualified

expert (R.W. 2), it could be maintained intact without any danger of failing, for another 20 years. It may be that the building was erected at a

considerable time previously; but, nevertheless, its present condition may be such as to involve no danger whatever of any breaking up, so as to

necessitate a decision by the landlord that it was in his interest to demolish it immediately, which demolition had to be made for the purpose of

erecting a new building thereon. It has to be carefully noted that this criterion is incidental. What the section really requires is that the landlord must

satisfy the Court that the building was bona fide required by him, for the immediate purpose of demolition. I am totally unable to see how the

present stage of the building and the extent to which it could stand without immediate demolition and reconstruction, in the future, are not relevant

considerations in assessing the bona fides of the landlord. On the one hand, landlords may bona fide require such buildings, particularly old

buildings, in their own interest, for demolition and reconstruction. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the mere fact that the building is old

is taken advantage of by the landlord to put forward such pretext, his real object being ulterior, and not bona fide for the purpose of

reconstruction. The Courts have to apply several criteria, and to judge upon the totality of the facts. But the Courts cannot exclude the possibility

that the ancient or relatively old character of the building, which may nevertheless be in quite a good and sound condition, is being taken advantage

of by a landlord in order to make such an application with an ulterior purpose, which purpose might be, for instance, to obtain far more

advantageous terms of rent in the future. What the section really contemplates is a bona fide requirement; that necessarily implies that it is in the

interests of the landlord to demolish and reconstruct the building, and that the fact that the building is old is not merely a pretext for advancing the

application, with the object of evicting the tenant, and of obtaining higher rentals.

In my view, whatever might be the precise language in which the learned Judge in the Court below has expressed his reasoning, whether happy

or otherwise, the conclusion is primarily one of fact, and is based on a review of the evidence on record, including the oral evidence; under such

circumstances, this Court certainly should not interfere, in the exercise of its powers of revision. Further, some regard must certainly be had to the

fact that the Act is intended for the protection of tenants, from unjust eviction though the rights of landlords acting bona fide are equally

safeguarded, and that it will be an abuse of process of Court if any provision of the Act is merely used as a pretext by the landlord, to obtain the

eviction of a tenant, which he could not do otherwise. The civil revision petition is dismissed in limine.