Sankara Kaimal and Others vs Mariamma Job

N.K. Balakrishnan, J.—The tenants are in revision. They challenge the order of eviction concurrently passed u/s 11(4)(iv) of the Act. It was contended by the landlady that the petition schedule building, which is a shop room, and the remaining shop rooms under the same roof are in a dilapidated condition and that the entire structure has to be pulled down for reconstruction. The landlady contended that a multi storied shopping complex is intended to be constructed and for that purpose, this shop room and the adjacent shop rooms are to be demolished.

The revision Petitioners/tenants resisted the rent control petition contending that there is no bona fides in the claim and that the landlady is not having the requisite fund for reconstruction of the building. It was also contended that the landlady is aged 80 years and so it is unlikely that she would reconstruct the building.

Before the Rent Control Court Exts. A1 to A89 and Exts. B1 to B10 were marked. The landlady was examined as P.W. 1. The commission reports, Mahazar, sketch, the report submitted by Expert Engineer and plan were marked as Exts. C1 to C5 respectively. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the tenants. The Rent Control Court after analysing the evidence found that the building requires reconstruction as it is in a dilapidated condition. The petition schedule room is one of the twenty line rooms. The landlady proposed to reconstruct the building by utilising the land situated behind the petition schedule building. The landlady has produced plan and estimate. She has given evidence to prove her capacity to reconstruct. Ext. A-89 plan shows that provision has been made to accommodate the tenants. So, relying on the evidence adduced on behalf of the landlady eviction was ordered.

The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also concurred with the order passed by the Rent Control Court.

Sri. N. Ahsok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioners would submit that the landlady is aged more than 80 years and so it may not be possible for her to have the building reconstructed. It is also contended that more than Rupees One crore is required for reconstructing the building. The evidence given by PW 1 would show that she is not having that much of amount with her, so submitted the learned counsel. In order to reconstruct the building, it is not necessary that the landlady should have that much of amount in cash with her. She has the ability to raise the required fund by availing loan from banks and other financial institutions. The evidence given by PW 1 was correctly appreciated by the two authorities below and they came to the concussion that the need for reconstruction is bona fide. Since the Local Authorities have given permit and plan and since Ext. A83 plan shows that provision has been made to accommodate the tenants, the revision Petitioners can have no genuine grievance. We are satisfied that the orders passed by the Court below do not warrant any interference.

The result is therefore as follows:

i. The revision petition is dismissed.

ii. The tenants/revision Petitioners are granted four months time to vacate the petition schedule building and to put the landlady in possession of the same.