R. Ramadoss and Another vs Syed Shahabudeen

Thanikkachalam, J.—The landlords are the petitioners herein. The landlords filed a petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease

and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the landlords the petition premises

is in a dilapidated condition and it is aged about more than 100 years old. According to them a part of the building was pulled down since it was

encroached on the Government land. The landlords submitted that they are having sufficient means to demolish the existing building and put up a

new superstructure, but they did not obtain any sanctioned plan for constructing new structure. Since the building is very old, according to the

landlords they are entitled to file a petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction. Therefore according to them they require the

petition premises bona fide for immediate demolition and reconstruction. Originally there are three tenants. According to the landlords, two of them

vacated and only one tenant is in possession. The tenant filed a counter stating that the building is not in a dilapidated condition as alleged by the

landlords and it is in a sound condition. It was further submitted that the landlords have no means to demolish the existing building put up a new

structure. It was also submitted that the landlords have not obtained any sanctioned plan for the purpose of putting up new superstructure.

According to the tenant, the landlords have no bona fide requirement as contemplated u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. It was therefore pleaded that the

landlords failed to establish their bona fide in requiring the petition premises u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. The landlords filed 22 documents. The tenant

filed 2 documents. Exs.C-1 to C-3 are marked as court documents. The first petitioner and one Annamalai were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2. The

second respondent alone was examined as R.W. 1. After considering the facts arising in this case, the rent controller came to the conclusion that

there is bona fide on the part of the petitioners in requiring the petition premises and accordingly eviction was ordered after giving three months

time for eviction. On appeal, the rent control appellate authority appraising the facts arising in this case came to the conclusion that the landlords

have failed to establish their bona fide in requiring the petition premises u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the Rent

Controller was set aside and the petition for eviction was dismissed. It is against this order, the present revision is preferred by the landlords.

Learned Counsel appearing for the landlords/petitioners herein submitted as under: The Rent. Control Appellate Authority was not correct in

stating that the landlords failed to give undertaking as contemplated u/s 14(2)(b) of the Act. On the other hand, in the petition it was clearly stated

that the landlords would commence demolition work within the time stipulated u/s 14(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore it is not correct on the part of the

appellate authority to state that no undertaking was given u/s 14(2)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority went wrong in stating that the

undertaking as contemplated u/s 14(2)(a) of the Act was not given. No undertaking need be given to the tenants as pointed Out by the authorities

below. But in the present case, the petition was filed u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, the Rent Control

Appellate Authority misdirected himself in understanding the provision under which the petition was filed. The Rent Control Appellate Authority

was not correct in stating that the sanctioned plan was not produced by the landlords and therefore there is no bona fide on the part of the

landlords in requiring the petition premises u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. As per the earlier decision of this Court, the non-production of sanctioned plan

by itself would not disentitle the landlord to file a petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. Again the learned Counsel contended that the ingredients as

pointed out by the Supreme Court in P.ORR and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited[OVERRULED], , were established

in the present case. Therefore it was submitted that the rent control appellate authority was not correct in reversing the well considered order of the

rent controller.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the tenant while supporting the order passed by the rent control appellate authority

submitted that inasmuch as the landlords failed to produce the sanctioned plan, they failed to establish their bona fide in requiring the petition

premises u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. It was further submitted that the matter can be remitted back to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal if the

landlords undertake to produce the sanctioned plan.

I have heard the rival submissions.

It remains to be seen that the landlords are the petitioners herein and the petition for eviction was filed u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and

reconstruction. In order to prove that the petition premises is more than 100 years old, the landlords filed Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-1 is the sale deed

dated 30.12.1912. According to the said document the petition premises was purchased by the father of the petitioners herein. In the said

document, it would go to show that the building in question would be aged more than 100 years. In order to find out the condition of the building

one Engineer/Commissioner was appointed. The Engineer/Commissioner inspected the petition premises and filed his report along with the rough

sketch. An Advocate-Commissioner was also appointed by the Rent Controller in order to find out the condition of the building. The Advocate-

Commissioner after inspection filed his report along with the rough sketch. The reports and the rough sketch of the building are marked as court

Exs.C-1 to C-3, The reports filed by the Commissioner would go to show that the building is in a dilapidated condition. A portion of the building

was pulled down since it was encroached on the Government land. There are water marks to show leakages inside the building during rainy

season. Therefore some plants grown on the building. Therefore it is proved beyond doubt that the building is in a dilapidated condition. Further

the front portion of the building was asked to be demolished since it was encroached on the Government land and accordingly the front portion of

the building was pulled down by the landlords. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the building is not in a dilapidated condition. So far as

the means to demolish the existing building and to put up the new structure is concerned, the landlords have produced Exs.P-4 to P-22. These

documents would go to show that the landlords are, in affluent position. The landlords are the owners of agricultural lands and they are also

possessed of several properties and they are assessed to agricultural Income Tax. Therefore their capacity to raise money to put up new structure

cannot be doubted. Hence they have established their means to put up new structure. It is stated by the Rent Control Appellate Authority that no

undertaking was given by the landlords to put back the tenant after the construction was put up. But this undertaking is not necessary because the

petition was not filed u/s 14(1)(a) of the Act. But in the present case, the petition was filed u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, and in such a case the said

undertaking as pointed out by the Rent Control Appellate Authority need not be given. It is also significant to note that in the petition for eviction

filed by the landlords it is clearly stated about the undertaking as contemplated u/s 14(2)(b) of the Act. Another defect pointed out by the learned

Rent Control Appellate Authority was that the landlords have not produced any sanctioned plan in order to prove their bona fide in requiring the

petition premises u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. Learned Counsel appearing for the landlords submitted that the fact the sanctioned plan was not

produced by itself would not go to show that the landlords failed to establish their bona fide in requiring the petition premises u/s 14(1)(b) of the

Act. In support of the above said contention, the learned Counsel relied upon a decision reported in S. Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan 94 L.W.

102, wherein this Court while considering the bona fide requirement of the landlord as contemplated u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act has held as follows:

The capacity and means of the landlord to carry out the work of demolition and reconstruction do not appear to have been challenged in the

present proceedings. Want of the sanctioned plan or lack of preparation for the work of demolition and reconstruction by itself cannot negative the

bona fide of the landlord. Each case will have to be decided on its own facts. Under certain circumstances the preparation for demolition and

reconstruction on the fond hope of succeeding in his proceedings for eviction. To insist upon such a factor as a sine quo non for initiation of

proceedings for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, would drive the landlord to incur expenditure which may turn out to be

futile depending upon the ultimate result in the proceedings for eviction. In my view, Ex.A-1 clinches the issue and lends ample support to the case

of the landlords for demolition and reconstruction.

Further in order to obtain possession u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, the Supreme Court in P.ORR and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Associated Publishers

(Madras) Limited[OVERRULED], , adumbrated certain ingredients, which are as follows:

We accordingly hold that Section 14(1)(b) is satisfied only if the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate i.e. direct, sole and

timely purpose of demolishing it with a view to erecting a new building on the site of the existing building. Various circumstances such as the

capacity of the landlord, the size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place the economic advantage and

other factors justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authority in considering an application

for recovery; but the essential and overriding consideration which, in the general interests of the public and for the protection of the tenants from

unreasonable eviction, the legislature has in mind is the condition of the building that demands timely demolition by reason of the extent of damage

to its structure making it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs. While the condition of the building by itself may not necessarily establish the

bona fide requirement under Clause (b), that condition is not only one of the various circumstances which may be taken into account by the

controller, but it is the essential condition in the absence of which it would not be possible for the landlord to prove that he has bona fide

requirement which is timely, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building. The Act does not accept the requirement by the

landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building in the context of the relevant

circumstances, requires demolition. These are matters which are to be proved by evidence.

Thus, the facts on record would go to show undoubtedly that the petition premises is now in a dilapidated condition and the landlord are

possessed of sufficient means to put up the new superstructure. The landlord have also given their necessary undertaking in the petition filed u/s

14(1)(b) of the Act. Now the landlords have not produced any sanctioned plan for the future construction. But according to the decision of this

Court in S. Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan 94 L.W. 102, cited supra, the non-production of the sanctioned plan by itself would not disentitle the

landlord to get an order of eviction u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the matter should go back

to the file of the Rent Controller for the purpose of redoing since the Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to consider the appeal in proper

perspective in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. On considering the facts arising in this case in the light of

the judicial pronouncements cited supra, I am of the opinion that the matter need not be remitted back to the file of Rent Controller for fresh

disposal. Accordingly, the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is set aside and that the order of the Rent Controller is restored.

In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, the petition for eviction u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act is ordered. After hearing both sides, the tenant

is granted three months time to vacate the petition premises on condition that he should file an affidavit of undertaking to the effect within three

weeks from the date of this order, failing which time granted to vacate the petition premises shall stand vacated. There will be no order as to costs.