The Manager, Canara Bank and Another vs Manoranjitham

Pratap Singh, J.—These civil revision petitions are directed against the judgment in M.A. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1986 on the file of Appellate

Authority under Rent Control Act, Pondicherry.

The respondent in these petitions is the same person viz., Manoranjitham Ammal. She filed R.C.O.P. Nos. S and 6 of 1985 on the file of Rent

Controller, Pondicherry, u/s 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 for eviction against these

petitioners respectively. The allegations in the petition in H.R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1985 are as follows:

She is landlady of the demised premise. The respondent is occupying the ground floor as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. The petitioner

constructed a residential building on the third floor of the demised building and occupied it on 17.8.1984. She was constrained to make a major

substantial, material, structural alterations of the demised building by demolition of the demised building to increase its value and utility and

convenience of both the petitioner and the tenant. She had drawn plans to put up a lift on the northern side of the demised building which will

occupy a space of 2m x 2m x 18m. Consequently she is forced to demolish a portion of 2m x 2m x 18m on the northern side to provide entrance

gate for the lift. The petitioner wants to make major, substantial, material, structural alteration in the building to facilitate the lift machinery to

function on the northern side of the demised building. She is providing mosaic ""flooring in all the floors. Consequently, she is raising the floor level

by two inches. The pipeline have to be removed and water closets and wash basins and urinals have to be demolished and have to be

reconstructed on the eastern side. She intends to construct an additional bathroom for the ground floor, first floor and second floor. She is also

going to construct a dining room for the first, second floors. She is also going to demolish and remove all existing windows and alter them as sliding

windows. She also intends to provide collapsible gates at the entrance gates in all the floors. These alterations amount to demolition u/s 14(1)(b) of

Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It does not fall under definition of ''repairs'' u/s 2(9) of the said Act. She has given the

necessary undertaking. In case, the court deems that the above alterations do not amount to demolition of the building, it may deem it as ''repair''

and permit the petitioner to do the work as ''repair'' u/s 14(1)(a) of the said Act. She gives the necessary undertaking for that also. She is having

the necessary finance and hence the petition.

On similar allegation H.R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 1985 was filed, against the respondent in that case, who is in occupation of first floor.

The respondents resisted the claim on various grounds. They have denied all the allegations made in the petitions.

After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller, had dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady had filed appeals in M.A. Nos. 10

and 11 of 1986 before the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act, Pondicherry. After hearing both sides, the learned Appellate Authority

had allowed the appeals and aggrieved by the same, these civil revision petitions are filed by the tenants.

Mr. M. Balachandar, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2581 of 1987, would submit that on the showing

of the landlady, she requires the building for effecting improvement by way of structural alterations and that the case would not fall either u/s 14(1)

(a) or u/s l4(1)(b) and so the petitions are liable to be dismissed. He would further submit that neither in the petition nor in evidence there is any

material to show that the building is old or that the condition is had and in the absence of any such pleading or evidence, the building cannot be

required for the purpose of demolition. Mr. S. Soundararajan, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2595 of

1987 would also make a similar submissions. Per contra, Mr. Bhavanandham, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit

that there is a finding a fact about the bona fide requirement and that though the intended demolition was not total, it was substantial and as such,

the case will fall within the purview of Section 14(1)(b). He would further submit that the totality of the evidence would show that the building was

old and as well in a bad condition, requiring demolition and reconstruction. He would add that it is unnecessary that the building should be decrepit

or dilapidated to entitle the landlady to claim it for demolition and reconstruction.

I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned Counsel. I shall refer to the parties as they were arrayed before the Rent

Controller. To consider the first submission made by Mr. M. Balachandar that the present case will not fall either u/s 14(1)(a) or 14(1)(b) of

Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 (which I shall hereafter refer to as ''the Act''). Section 14(1)(a) and (b) extraction and

they read as follows:

14(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Sections 12 and 13, on an application made by a landlord

the controller shall, if he is satisfied.

(a) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated, or

(b) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it such demolition is to be made for the purpose

of erecting a new building on the side of the building sought to be demolished, pass an order directing the tenant the deliver possession of the

building to the landlord before a specified date.

To make the picture complete, the definition of ''repairs'' as given in Section 2(9) of the Act also need extraction and it reads as follows:

(9) repairs means the restoration of a building to a sound or good state after decay or injury but does not include additions, improvements or

alterations except in so far as they are necessary to carry out such restoration.

I shall first take up for consideration whether the building can be required for the purpose of effecting repairs u/s 14(1)(a) of the Act. The

definition of ''repairs'' extracted above would show that it means only restoration of a building to a sound or good state after decay or injury, but it

does not include addition, omission or alterations except insofar as they are necessary to carry out such restoration. In the instant case the

alterations sought for are substantial. So it would not fall within the purview of ''repairs'' as defined in Section 2(9) of the Act.

I shall now consider the submission whether the building can be required u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. In this case the entirety of the building was not

sought to be demolished. It is not a case where the entire building was to be demolished and in its place a new building is to come up, but the

alterations and improvements sought for are substantial and material and it leads to structural alterations also. What the landlord had intended to do

has been set out in great detail in paragraph 4 of the petition. They include providing of mosaic flooring, raising of the floor level by 2"" in order to

provide mosaic flooring, construction of lift which consequently, results, in substantial removal of portions construction of additional bathrooms,

construction of dining rooms, demolition and removal of the existing windows and altering them as sliding windows, etc. It is needless for me to

state that the alterations intended to be made are substantial, material and involving structural alterations.

In C.R. Khaja Hussain v. R. Rajamani 97L.W. 375, Justice Ramanujam had held as follows:

It is no doubt true that for filing an application u/s 14(1)(b) the entire building need not be demolished or reconstructed but the demolition and

reconstruction should at least comprise of a substantial portion of the building.

With great respect I am in total agreement with the view of the learned Judge. Inasmuch as the alteration and constructions sought for in this case is

substantial and materially involving alterations, it would amount to demolition and reconstruction of substantial portion of the building and hence

Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is attracted. I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr. M. Balachander that the present case will not fall u/s

14(1)(b) of the Act.

I shall now pass on to the third submission made by Mr. M. Balachander that the courts below have not found that the condition of the building

is bad, and unless, that was found, the claim u/s 14(l)(b) of the Act would not lie. In this regard he would rely upon P.ORR and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs.

Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited[OVERRULED], In paragraph 30 of it, while considering the requirement u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, the

Apex Court has laid as follows:

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 over-riding 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 bonafide 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 a bonafide requirement which is timely directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building.

Thus emphasis has been laid on the condition of the building. In these cases the courts below have not considered this aspect of the case. Hence,

the matter has to be remitted back to the Rent Controller, for considering this aspect of the case and to arrive at a conclusion. Taking that view of

the matter, both the civil revision petitions are to be necessarily allowed and matter remitted back to the rent controller.

In view of the above, civil revision petitions are allowed setting aside the judgment of the courts below, and the matter is remitted back to the

Rent Controller, Pondicherry, who is directed to restore R.C.O.P. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1985 on his file in its original number and dispose it off

according to law and in the light of the observations made in this order, giving opportunity to both sides to amend the petition and counter if they so

choose, and giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary. No costs.