N. Janaki and Another vs S. Jayalatchumi

K. Govindarajan, J.—The tenant who faced with eviction by the Appellate Authority filed the above revision. The landlady filed Petitions in

R.CO.P.Nos. 284 and 285 of 1984 on the file of Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli for eviction under Sections 10(2)(ii), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(i)(b) of

the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the landlady, the tenant has not paid the rent for two months namely,

May and June, 1984 and such a default is wilful. With respect to the ground of owners occupation she has stated in the petition that they are in

occupation of a rented premises and running a Coffee Hotel. To have the business in the premises in question, they require the same. With respect

to the ground of demolition and reconstruction, it is the case of the landlady that the municipality gave a notice on 17.3.1984 asking the landlady to

demolish the building in question that it was in a very dangerous condition. The landlady has stated that she requires the premises for immediate

purpose of demolition and reconstruction by creating a new terraced building by having all modern facilities in order to suit her convenience in the

vacant site. According to her, she has got sufficient funds for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The tenants contested the petition by

filing a counter. The Rent Controller in his order dated 4.11.1991 dismissed the petition. It is relevant to mention here that with respect to wilful

default, the landlady has not pressed the said issue. Aggrieved against the said order the landlady filed an appeal in R.C.A.Nos. 4 and 5 of 1992

on the file of Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli. The Appellate Authority after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the appeals

on both the grounds in his order dated 13.12.1993.

The landlady sought for eviction on the ground of owners occupation to run a Coffee Hotel which is carried on by her in a rented building which

is situated just opposite to the premises in question. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing has been

stated in the petition as to why the landlady wants to shift the hotel to the premises in question. The Rent Controller has found that though the

municipality has given a notice for increased rent, no notice was issued for eviction. But the Appellate Authority only on the basis of the said notice

issued by the municipality demanding enhanced rent, allowed the appeal. The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the landlady has not

given that reason in the petition regarding the necessity to shift the shop. It is well-settled that for asking for the premises for owner''s occupation,

mere proving ingredients of the section is not enough but more than that the bona fide intention should be proved. In this case, though the landlady

has established the ingredients of the section, there is nothing on record to show that the intention of the landlady is a bona fide one. In the the

absence of such proof, the Appellate Authority is not correct in allowing the appeal on that ground.

With respect to the ground of demolition and reconstruction, it is the case of the landlady that the municipality has issued notice on 17.3.1984 to

her. That is as marked as Ex.A-7. Though the Rent Controller has not accepted her evidence with respect to the condition of building, the

Appellate Authority relied on the said document Ex.A-7 to come to a conclusion that the building is in a dilapidated condition. The learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the reply notice, it is specifically stated that the said notice Ex.A-7 was issued at the instance of

the landlady for the purpose of filing the petition. But the said contention has not been established before the authorities.

The Appellate Authority has relied on the said documents and came to a conclusion that the building is in a dilapidated condition. The Appellate

Authority also has accepted the case of the landlady on the basis on Ex.A-10, that she is having sufficient funds for the purpose of constructing the

building. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that in the petition, the landlady has not stated about the undertaking as required

u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. But P. W. 1 in the evidence has specifically stated that from the date of the order, the building will be constructed within

three months. Though there is no such undertaking in the petition when the undertaking is available in the evidence, it cannot be said that the

landlady has not complied with the statutory requirement at all. The Appellate Authority has appreciated the documents and came to a conclusion

that the landlady requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction and such requirement is a bona fide one. In the petition, the landlady has

stated that she wants to construct the new terraced building with all modern facilities in order to suit her convenience. The said reason cannot be

rejected as she is having a bona fide intention to reconstruct the premises. In view of the factual finding given by the Appellate Authority, exercising

jurisdiction u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, I am not inclined to interfere with the factual finding of the

Appellate Authority. Hence, the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority is confirmed u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. Hence, the civil revision

petition is dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner requests time for six months to vacate the premises. Six months time from this date is granted, to vacate

the premises on condition that the petitioner should file an affidavit of undertaking on or before 17.11.1997 that she will vacate and handover the

vacant possession of the premises before the said period, without dragging the landlady to the court for getting possession. If such an affidavit is

not filed within the time, the order of eviction will come into operation immediately.