Shunmugham and Others vs S. Satyanarayana Prasad

Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.—These civil revision petitions arise out of orders passed in execution of an order for eviction passed under the

provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The tenants are the Petitioners before me. In House Rent Case No. 2508

of 1963, the. landlord of the premises now in question, one Asgar Ali Dhala sought to evict the Petitioners on the ground that the building required

immediate demolition and reconstruction. ""While filing the application, he gave the undertaking required of him by Section 14(2)(6) of the Act

stating that the work of demolition of the material portion of the building would be substantially commenced by him not later than one month and

would be completed before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building. The tenants agreed to give

vacant possession and accordingly an order by consent was passed by which the tenants were directed to deliver possession to the landlord by

31st December 1962. Even before that date arrived, Asgar Ali sold the building to one Satyanarayana Prasad who is the Respondent in these

petitions. Satyanarayana taking advantage of the order procured by his predecessor-in-title, filed an application in execution out of which these civil

revision petitions arise for enforcing the order of the Rent Controller for eviction. That was successful and the Petitioners were directed to deliver

possession. They have now filed the revision petitions challenging the order of the executing Court.

The contention urged by Mr. R.V. Seshadri, on behalf of the tenants is that the original order passed on the basis of the undertaking given u/s

14(2)(b) of the Act must be regarded only as personal to the applicant and that it cannot be availed of by his successor-in-interest. This contention

is sought to be supported by reference to Section 14(2)(b) and Section 33(3)(b). Section 14(2)(b) requires the landlord to give an undertaking

that the work of demolishing the building will be commenced within one month of the delivery of possession to him. Section 33(3)(b) provides

penalty for not conforming to the undertaking. In the present case the tenants have not yet delivered vacant possession and the question whether

the landlord is going to fulfill the terms of his undertaking or not cannot now fall for consideration. But it is argued that inasmuch as the sanction

provided u/s 33(3)(b) can only be against the person giving the undertaking, the present landlord Satyanarayana will not be bound by that

undertaking and the penalty provided in Section 33(3)(b) will not be available against him. That may be so. If there be default in the performance

of the obligations undertaken u/s 14(2)(b) , Asgar Ali the previous landlord can certainly be proceeded against u/s 33(3)(b). It will, be his duty to

see that his vendee implements the undertaking given by him. The statute has imposed stringent conditions before the landlord, who lets out his

building to a tenant can recover possession of the same. But at the same time there is nothing in it which prohibits the former from disposing of the

property in the way in which he is entitled to under the law. For example, there is nothing in the statute which says that the landlord cannot sell his

property because he has filed an application for eviction of his tenant or has obtained an order for the same. In other words, the fact that an

application for eviction of the tenant has been filed on the ground that the building required immediate demolition and reconstruction cannot also

take away the power of the landlord under the general law to transfer the building in any manner he may choose. A landlord who satisfies the

controller that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction and obtains an order, will be bound to comply with the undertaking. If

he sells the property, the sale is not invalid nor will the order for eviction be deemed to lapse. It is true that the sanction provided u/s 33 will not

avail against the purchaser. But it can certainly be used against the landlord who gave the undertaking whose duty it will be to see that the

purchaser conforms to his undertaking. The tenants who have been evicted will also have their remedy if the building were not taken up for

demolition and reconstruction. Mr. Seshadri, however, argues that in case where there has been a sale of the property by the landlord who

obtained an order u/s 14(1)(b) for eviction, the purchaser will have to satisfy the executing Court by giving a separate undertaking that he requires

the building for demolition or reconstruction. I am unable to see any warrant for this contention in any of the provisions of the statute. The Court

below was in the position of an executing Court. It had- no right to go into the question as to whether the finding reached by the Rent Controller on

the question whether the need of the landlord was bona fide or not, was correct or not. Its duty is to execute the order for eviction as it stands. If

there has been a devolution of interest of the landlord, it will equally be the duty of the executing Court to execute the order of eviction at the

instance of the successor. I cannot, therefore, see any error in the order of the lower Court to merit interference in revision. The petitions fail and

are dismissed with costs. (One Advocate''s fee to be divided equally). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner asks for time to give vacant possession.

The Petitioners will have two months'' time to give vacant possession of the building.