S.P. Sabura Begum vs M.K. Thangavelu

K. Govindarajan, J.—The landlord who succeeded before the Rent Controller and failed before the Appellate Authority has filed the above

revision petition. The petitioner/landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No. 11 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif of

Periyakulam u/s 14(1)(b) and 14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 23 of 1973 on the ground that the building is

more than 60 years old and she has decided to demolish the entire building, namely, Door Nos. 98, 99 and 100, 18th Road, Periyakulam. She has

also stated that she was taking steps to get licence and plan from the municipality for the proposed demolition and reconstruction and she has

sufficient means to carryout the demolition and reconstruction. In compliance with Section 14(2) of the Act she gave undertaking to commence the

demolition not later than one month and complete it within three months. In spite of the notices the tenant did not vacate the building. So, she filed

the said petition. The tenant filed a counter stating that he had been running his saloon for the past more than 30 years and if he is evicted from the

building there is no other building to run his profession and thereby he would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. He has denied the fact that

the building is 60 years old. He has further stated that it is a pucca building and there is no need to demolish the entire structure and to erect a new

building. At the instance of the tenant, a Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner after due inspection of the building filed his report,

which was marked as Ex.C-1. In his report, the advocate-commissioner has stated that the building has some cracks. The landlord examined

herself as P.W.I and the tenant examined himself as R.W.1. The Rent Controller after due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

found that the intention of the landlord to demolish the building in question is a bonaflde one and on that basis the Rent Controller allowed the

petition and ordered eviction. Aggrieved against this, the tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A.No. 13 of 1990 on the file of the Appellate Authority,

Sub-Judge, Periyakulam. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller only on the basis of the

judgment reported in P. Orr. & Sons (Private) Ltd., v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd., 1990 (2) L.W. 547. The Appellate Authority held

that the building in question is not in dilapidated or dangerous condition and so the petition filed u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act cannot be ordered. On that

ground, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. Against that judgment the present revision petition is filed by the landlord.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority has proceeded with the case applying incorrect test that the petition

u/s 14(1)(b) can be ordered only on the ground that the building should be in a dilapidated or dangerous condition. He further submitted that even

in the decision rendered in P. Orr. & Sons Case, 1990 2 L.W. 547 the age and condition of the building is one of the criteria to be taken while

disposing of the petition filed u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited decisions in Vijay

Singh etc. etc. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, , and in S. Thangaswamy Vs. R. Vinayakamurthy, .

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are three portions in the same building bearing Door Nos. 98, 99 and 100. the

premises bearing Door Nos. 98 and 99 are vacant. The premises bearing Door No. 100 is the subject matter in the above revision petition. The

landlord wants to demolish all the three portions and construct a building in the said vacant land. In support of the same, the landlord filed two

documents, namely, Exs.P-4 and P-5 under which the municipality, Periyakulam granted permission to construct the new building. The learned

counsel has further submitted that the landlord is having enough funds to proceed with the construction and the Rent Controller has given a specific

finding in favour of the landlord regarding the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner further put forward a contention stating that the landlord

has fulfilled all the ingredients to allow the petition for demolition and reconstruction and the Appellate Authority without even applying his mind

with respect to those important factors erroneously allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller.

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Appellate Authority is correct in allowing the appeal as the building is not required for

immediate demolition and reconstruction, since it is in good condition. He also raised a point stating that in the grounds of revision, the landlord has

not raised any ground stating that the condition of the building is bad and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

I have carefully gone through the entire pleadings filed by both the sides, oral and documentary evidence and also the orders of the authorities

below.

For allowing the petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, we have to find out whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and

erection of new building at the same site is bonaflde of not. For recording that finding, we have to take into account (1) bonaflde intention of the

landlord, far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; and (3) the financial position of the

landlord to demolish and erect a new building. In the present case, the landlord has proved before the Rent Controller that she has funds to

proceed with the new construction and she has given an undertaking to commence the demolition not later than one month and complete it within

three months as required under the Act. The landlord has also filed documents, namely, Exs.P-4 and P-5 the sanctioned Plans for new

construction. It is also relevant to mention that the landlord wants to demolish the premises in question but also the other premises bearing Door

No. 98 and 99 and construct one new building in the entire vacant land. P.W.1, the landlord has deposed about the availability of funds and the

necessity to construct the new building. To disprove her evidence, the tenant has not come forward with any sufficient material. Taking into

consideration of all these factors, the Rent Controller has rightly allowed the petition.

The Appellate Authority has not considered any other factor except applying the decision in P. Orr. & Sons case, 1990 2 L.W. 547. The

Appellate Authority has not understood the scope of that judgment. Even in that judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the condition of the

building need not have deteriorated to the extent of its being in danger of crumbling down, but it should indicate the bonaflde requirement for the

timely, genuine and direct purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The recent Judgment of the Supreme Court Vijay Singh etc. etc. Vs.

Vijayalakshmi Ammal, , the Supreme Court has held that it is difficult to accept the stand of the appellant (tenants) that the building must be

dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human habitation for granting permission u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. The judgment reported in S. Thangaswamy

Vs. R. Vinayakamurthy, is also on the same line. In the decision reported in Venugopal and Ors. v. Fathima Beevi and Anr., 1996 2 L.W. 772, it

is held that if the intention of the landlord is proved to be genuine and not spurious or suspicious, the landlord would be entitled to obtain an order

for eviction u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act whether or not the condition of the building is such as to require immediate demolition, the age and dilapidated

condition of the building not being sine qua non for such eviction. The said judgment will directly apply to the facts of the present case. I find from

the oral and documentary evidence let in the case that the requirement of the landlord is a bona fide one. The learned counsel for the respondent is

not able to persuade me to take different view. So, I have no hesitation in holding that the Appellate Authority is not correct in allowing the appeal,

on the basis of the physical condition of the building alone. Even then, the report of the Advocate-Commissioner will reveal that there are some

cracks in the building. For the abovesaid reasons, I set aside the order of the Appellate Authority, and restore the order of the eviction passed by

the Rent Controller.

In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.