M.M. Mohamed Ali rep. by his power agent A.H. Mohammed Ismail vs Elite Electronics and Others

B. Rajendran, J.—The landlord is the revision petitioner in all these Civil Revision Petitions. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed

assailing the orders dated 17.10.2005 made in R.C.A. Nos. 546, 547, 549 and 550 of 2001 respectively on the file of the VIII Small Causes cum

learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2011 passed in R.C.O.P. No. 2546, 2547,

2549 and 2550 of 1997 respectively on the file of the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The revision petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.

Nos. 2546, 2547, 2549 and 2550 of 1997 respectively before the learned Rent Controller u/s 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and

Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as ''The Act'' praying to issue appropriate direction to the respondents/tenants to quit and deliver

vacant possession of the shops under their occupation. The Rent Control Original Petitions have been contested by the tenants. The learned Rent

Controller ultimately dismissed the Rent Control Original Petition Nos. 2546, 2547, 2549 and 2550 of 1997 filed by the revision

petitioner/landlord on 19.04.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/landlord filed R.C.A. Nos. 546, 547, 549 and 550 of 2001

respectively. The Rent Control Appeals have also been dismissed which resulted in the filing of the present Civil Revision Petitions.

Before the learned Rent Controller, common evidence was let in all the cases. On behalf of the landlord/revision petitioner, it was contended

before the learned Rent Controller that the building in question is 75 years old and it is in a dilapidated condition warranting immediate demolition.

Before instituting the Rent Control Original Petitions, the landlord/revision petitioner has sent a notice dated 20.03.1997 seeking eviction of the

tenants/respondents for which a reply notice dated 10.04.1997 was sent by them denying the request of the landlord/revision petitioner. Before the

Rent Controller, a Civil Engineer was also appointed to ascertain the age and condition of the building, but he was prevented by the

tenants/respondents from inspecting the building. It was also contended on behalf of the landlord/revision petitioner that the tenants/respondents are

paying a meager amount as rent and in order to augment the income of the landlord by putting the building a commercial complex, eviction of the

tenants are necessary.

The tenants/respondents herein have contested the Rent Control Original Petitions by stating that in the building, there is an inscription indicating

that the building was constructed only during the year 1938 and therefore, as on the date of instituting the Rent Control Original Petitions, the

building in question is less than 75 years and not as claimed by the landlord/revision petitioner herein. It was also claimed that the landlord/revision

petitioner did not produce any building plan approved by the competent authority and therefore, the requirement of the landlord/revision petitioner

cannot be construed as a bonafide, but malafide.

The learned Rent Controller, accepting the arguments advanced by the tenants/respondents, held that the landlord/revision petitioner failed to

prove that the age of the building is 75 years old warranting immediate demolition. Even though it was alleged that the Civil Engineer appointed on

behalf of the landlord/revision petitioner was not allowed to inspect the building in question, the landlord/revision petitioner has failed to take

appropriate steps in that behalf. The learned Rent Controller also found that the landlord/revision petitioner has failed to prove the age of the

building and that it warrants immediate demolition and therefore, the petitions filed by the landlord/revision petitioner were dismissed. Such a view

taken by the learned Rent Controller was also accepted by the learned Appellate Authority which resulted in the dismissal of the Rent Control

Appeals.

The learned counsel appearing for the landlord/revision petitioners would vehemently contend that the landlord/revision petitioner need not

prove that the building is in a dilapidated condition. If the intention of the landlord is bonafide to put his property in to optimum possible use, the

Court can direct the eviction of the tenants. In this context, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the decision of the

Honourable Supreme Court reported in S. Venugopal Vs. A. Karruppusami and Another, and Harrington House School Vs. S.M. Ispahani and

Another, to contend that the landlord shall submit plans for approval of the building construction sanctioned by the local authorities only during the

execution stage. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further contended that even according to the tenants/respondents herein, there is an

inscription in the building which indicate that the building was constructed in the year 1938 and if that is taken into consideration, now the age of the

building is more than 75 years. In fact, the landlord/revision petitioner took steps to appoint an Engineer and he was prevented by the

respondents/tenants from inspecting the building in question. Therefore, the Engineer appointed by the petitioner, based on the available records,

deposed that the age of the building is more than 75 years records. While so, the courts below ought to have taken judicial of the age of the

building instead of shifting the burden on the revision petitioner for not taking steps to enable the Civil Engineer to visit the building in question. In

any event, the requirement of the landlord/revision petitioner is bonafide and he prayed for allowing the Revision Petitions.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the tenants/respondents would contend that the landlord/revision petitioner has not stepped into the box

and deposed about the age and nature of the building. It is only the power agent of the petitioner who stepped into the box and deposed about the

age and condition of the building in question. The landlord/revision petitioner also did not file the building plan approval for consideration of the

Court. While so, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the landlord/revision petitioner herein did not prove that the requirement of the

building in question is bonafide as contemplated u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act and he prayed for dismissal of the revision petitions.

I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. The main argument advanced by the counsel for the

landlord/revision petitioners is that the landlord need not produce any evidence to show that the building is more than 70 years old and it warrants

immediate demolition and re-construction. It is further argued that the landlord can produce the sanctioned approved plan at the time of the

execution proceedings and it will satisfy the requirements contemplated u/s 14(1)(b) of ''The Act''.

Before dealing with the rival submissions made in this case, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in

P.ORR and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited[OVERRULED], wherein it was held that the condition of the building is

the determinative factor and it is required to be proved by the landlord to the satisfaction of the Court as contemplated u/s 14(1)(b) of ''The Act''.

However, the constitution Bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Vijay Singh etc. etc. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, overruled

the decision rendered in the case of P. Orr and Sons cited supra by holding that the age and condition of the building was only one of the relevant

factors and certainly it is not the determinative factor for testing the bonafides of the landlord. This decision of the Honourable Supreme Court was

followed in the subsequent decision reported in Harrington House School Vs. S.M. Ispahani and Another, wherein in para No. 5, it was held as

follows:-

......The constitution bench held that the bona fides of requirement for demolition could be found out by taking into account (i) bona fide intention

of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants (ii) the age and condition of the building (iii) the financial position of the

landlord to demolish and erect a new building. However, the constitution bench added that these were only some of the illustrative factors to be

taken into consideration before an order is passed u/s 14(1)(b). In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder (supra) this Court has held that apart from the

age and condition of the building, the capacity of the landlord to demolish and reconstruct the useful utilization of the property which would on

demolition and reconstruction make available more space to be occupied by human beings for residential/non-residential purposes and the genuine

desire of the landlord to earn economic advantage are relevant factors pointing to the bonafides of the requirement.

With this backdrop, it has to be seen as to whether the requirement of the landlord/revision petitioner for evicting the tenant on the ground that

the building is in a dilapidated condition and it is required for demolition and re-construction is bonafide or not.

The first and foremost contention of the counsel for the tenant/respondent is that the landlord/revision petitioner did not produce the approved

sanction plan for putting up a new construction after demolishing the existing superstructure. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of

the Honourable Supreme Court reported in S. Venugopal Vs. A. Karruppusami and Another, and Harrington House School Vs. S.M. Ispahani

and Another, wherein it was categorically held that the landlord can produce such sanctioned building plan approval at the time of execution

proceedings and it is sufficient compliance of Section 14(1)(b) of The Act. This is more so that if during the pendency of the litigation the landlord

obtains building planning permission sanctioned, he has to renew it by paying appropriate fee during regular interval till the completion of the

litigation. Therefore, following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, I hold that if the landlord produce the sanctioned building plan

approval at the stage of execution proceedings it is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of The Act.

As regards the age and condition of the building, even as per the evidence of the tenants/respondents herein, there is an inscription in the

building indicating that the building was constructed in the year 1938. Therefore, even as per the evidence of the tenants/respondents, the building

was constructed in the year 1938 and as on today, it is more than 75 years old. Even at the time of filing the Rent Control Original Petitions by the

landlord/revision petitioner herein, the building was 60 years old. This Court is also taking judicial notice of the fact that the building in question is

located in a commercial hub of the City of Chennai at Ritchie Street, Mount Road, Chennai. It is also seen from the records that the

tenants/respondents are paying a meager amount as rent. Therefore, the contention of the landlord/revision petitioner that the landlord requires the

demolition of the building and to put a commercial complex thereon to augment his income is well founded. Therefore, I hold that the orders

passed by the Courts below are erroneous and they are liable to be interfered with

At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the tenants/respondents pleaded that the tenants/respondents have succeeded before both the

Courts below. The tenants/respondents are running commercial business and are in occupation of the building in question for a long time.

Therefore, he prayed this Court to grant one year time to enable the tenants/respondent to vacate and handover vacant possession of the building.

The learned counsel for the landlord/revision petitioner also agrees for the same.

Having regard to the submission of the counsel for the tenant/respondents herein, the tenants/respondents are granted one year time from today

to vacate and handover vacant possession of the building in question to the landlord/revision petitioner herein i.e., on or before 30.09.2014. It is

made clear that the tenants/respondents are granted time on condition that they should file affidavits of undertaking before the learned Rent

Controller to the effect that they would vacate and handover the vacant possession on or before 30.09.2014 to the landlord/revision petitioner

herein and such affidavits have to be filed before 20.09.2013. It is also made clear that till such time the possession is handed over to the

landlord/revision petitioner, the tenants/respondents have to pay the agreed rent, month after month, without any default. In the event of failure to

comply with any of the conditions mentioned above, the benefit of this order will not enure to the tenants/respondent herein and in such event, it is

open to the landlord/revision petitioner to take appropriate steps to evict the tenants/respondents herein by filing petitions before the Court,

including contempt. In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed by setting aside the orders passed by both the Courts below.

Consequently, R.C.O.P. No. 2546, 2547, 2549 and 2550 of 1997 filed by the landlord/revision petitioner herein on the file of the learned X

Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai are allowed. The tenants/respondents herein shall vacate and handover vacant possession of the building in

question to the landlord/revision petitioner on or before 30.09.2014. No costs.