Vadamaduraipandian vs N. Susila Ammal

1.This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 1.4.99 made in RCA No.77 of 1997 on the file of Principal Sub

Court, Madurai confirmed in the order dated 18.9.97 made in RCOP No.70 of 1988 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town. The

petitioner in this civil revision petition is the tenant in RCOP No.70 of 1988.

The respondent/landlord filed a petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground that she is

the owner of the premises at Door No.23, Munichalai Road. Madurai Town. It is stated in the petition that the building was leased to the tenant on

a monthly rent of Rs.300 payable on or before the 5th of every succeeding months. The building is more than 60 years old. The landlord

purchased the building in the year 1981. The building is in dilapidated condition and therefore immediate demolition is necessary. It is further stated

that the landlord has sufficient means and the landlord also undertakes to demolish the building within a period of one month of handing over vacant

possession and the new building will be constructed within a period of three months thereafter. It is also stated that the landlord in the letter dated

28.11.87 requested the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and also to vacate the premises before 31.12.87. It is further stated that the tenant neither

paid the said arrears of rent nor vacated the premises on 31.12.87. Therefore the landlord is compelled to file the application u/s 14(1)(b) of the

said Act.

In the counter affidavit, the tenant submitted that the monthly rent is only Rs.200 and the contention of the landlord that monthly rent is Rs.300 is

not acceptable. The tenant has paid a sum of Rs.1,500 as advance for which the landlord has given a receipt. The contention of the landlord that

the age of the building is 60 years is not true as the building is only between 20 and 25 years old. The landlord enhanced the rent to Rs.300 during

the year 1986-87. Suddenly in the letter dated 28.11.87 the landlord demanded a higher rent of Rs.500 and also demanded a sum of Rs.25,000

as advance. Since the tenant did not accede to the said demand of the landlord, the petition for eviction u/s 14(1)(b) has been filed with malafide

intention.

On the basis of the above said rival submissions and the evidence let in on behalf of either side, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition

on the ground that the requirement of the premises by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction was bona fide and ordered eviction relying

upon the"" report of the Commissioner marked as Court Document No.1 and the report of the Engineer marked as Court Document No.3 wherein

it was stated that the building was in dilapidated condition and the same required immediate demolition and the age of the building was about 78

years old. The learned Rent Controller also rejected the contention of the tenant that the miscellaneous application in M.P.No.154 of 1988 filed u/s

8(5) of the Act seeking for permission to deposit the arrears of rent was allowed and therefore the contention of the landlord that the building was

required for bona fide purpose cannot be accepted.

The appellate Court concurring with the findings of the Rent Controller, rejected the appeal of the tenant and confirmed the order of eviction.

It is against these orders the present civil revision petition has been filed. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

restrict his submissions, without going into the merits, only to the ground that the intention of the landlord in filing the application for eviction u/s

14(1)(b) is not bona fide and that be the case the said application ought to have been rejected by both the Courts below. In support of the said

submission the learned counsel would submit that in the letter dated 28.11.87 just before the filing of the eviction petition during February 1988,

the landlord had demanded only an enhanced rent of Rs.500 with an advance of Rs.25,000. In the said letter the landlord had not indicated

anything about the conditions of the building and the requirement of the said premises for demolition and reconstruction. Since the tenant did not

adhere to the said demand but offered only the old rent of Rs.300/- the landlord refused to receive the rent. Thereafter also the tenant proceeded

in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 for making payment of rent and finally was forced to file an application u/s 8(5) of the Act seeking

permission of the Court for depositing the rent before the Court. The said petition was in fact allowed by the Court. Therefore the conduct of the

petitioner in refusing to receive the rent and forcing the tenant to file an application u/s 8(5) of the Act for depositing the arrears of rent is relevant

and vital factor to find out the real intention of the landlord as to whether the building is really required for demolition and reconstruction or only for

the sole purpose to get rid of the tenant from the premises. The learned counsel therefore submitted that in view of the past conduct of the landlord,

her intention to evict the tenant was not bona fide in filing an application u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act and therefore the application ought to have been

rejected. Therefore the learned counsel submitted that the tenant is entitled to succeed in the revision petition.

In support of the above submissions the learned counsel drew my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Vijay Singh etc. etc.

Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, In that case the Apex Court was considering the scope of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and finally held as follows in

paragraph 13:-

On reading S.14(1)(b) along with S.16 it can be said that for eviction of a tenant on the ground of demolition of the building for erecting a new

building, the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human habitation. If that was the requirement there is no occasion to put a condition

to demolish within a specified time, and to erect a new building on the same site. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 contemplates that permission has

been granted by the Sent Controller under S.14(1)(b) for demolition of the building, but if such demolition is not carried out in terms of the order

and undertaking, then Rent Controller can order the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions. If

the building is dangerous and dilapidated requiring immediate demolition for safety, then there is no question of Rent Controller directing landlord to

put the tenant in possession of such building on the original terms and conditions, on account of the failure of the landlord to commence the

demolition within the period prescribed. Similarly, there was no occasion to link the demolition of such building with erection of new building and

then to give the landlord freedom from the restrictive provisions of the Act for a period of five years from the date on which the construction of

such new building is completed and notified to the local authorities concerned. In this background, it has to be held that neither of the extreme

position taken by the respondent or the appellants can be accepted. Permission under S.14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller on

mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately demolish the building in question to erect a new building. At the same time it is difficult

to accept the stand of the appellants that the building must be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human habitation. For granting permission under

S.14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for

demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bonafide or not. For recording a finding that requirement for demolition

was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account: (1) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the

tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the

statutory requirements of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed

under S. 14(1)(b). No Court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to be taken into consideration

along with other factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller.

The learned counsel also drew my attention to yet another judgment of the Apex Court reported in K.M.Abdul Razaak v. Damodhran, 2000

(4) Supreme 575 the said judgment also, the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Vijay Singh etc. etc. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, was referred

to and followed. Therefore the learned counsel submitted that since the Intention of the landlord was not bona fide in instituting the proceedings u/s

14(1)(b), the petition for eviction deserves to be rejected for lack of bona fides on the part of the landlord/respondent.

In repudiating the above submissions, the learned counsel for the landlord/respondent submitted that there cannot be a dispute that the intention

of the landlord to seek for eviction u/s 14(1)(b) should be bona fide. However the said intention is only with reference to the conditions

enumerated u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act and not with regard to the past conduct of the landlord. In support of the said submission the learned counsel

drew my attention to a judgment reported in Sherwood Educational Society v. Abid Namazie and two others, 1997 (1) L.W. 323 another

judgment reported in A.Lakshmanan and others v. Kanniammal @ Pattammal, 1995 (1) L.W. 632 and yet another judgment reported in

A.M.Steel Traders Rep. by its Partners A.M.Ismail and two others v. S. M.M.Mohammed Fathimathu Zohra and seven others, 1998 (3) L.W.

704.

I have given my due consideration to the rival submissions and the judgments relied upon by the respective counsel. The Apex Court in clear

terms has held in Vijay Singh etc. etc. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, that for recording a finding that the requirement for demolition was bonafide the

Rent Controller has to take into account of the following (1) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenant;

(2) the age and condition of the building and (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the

statutory requirements of the Act. In the case on hand, the arguments advanced on either side is only with reference to the compliance of the above

condition No.1 namely whether there was bona fide intention on the part of the landlord in seeking eviction only with the sole object to get rid of

the tenant or to demolish and reconstruct the building. In this context it would be relevant to extract Section 14(1)(b) of the Act which reads as

follows:-

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 and such demolition is to be made for the

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

of the building to the landlord before a specified date.

On a plain reading of Section 14(1)(b) would clearly indicate that the landlord has to satisfy the Rent Controller as to his/her bona fides with regard

to the building for immediate purpose of demolishing and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the

building sought to be demolished. In this case it is seen from the report of the Commissioner appointed by the Court in Court Document No.1 and

the report of the Engineer who assisted the Commissioner marked as Court Document No.3 that the building is about 78 years old and is in

dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has not advanced any arguments disputing the

said report of the Commissioner and the Engineer. It is also stated by the landlord/respondent that she has sufficient means to put up the

construction and she has also given an undertaking, that the building will be demolished within a period of one month after the vacant possession

was given to her and the new building will be constructed within a period of three months thereafter. Therefore the bona fide requirement for

demolition and the intention on the part of the landlord/respondent to put up construction on the same site cannot be said to be in anyway not

supported by any materials. If that be the case, the requirement of the building for immediate demolition shall be construed only as bona fide on the

part of the landlord/respondent. However the submissions of the learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner that in view of the past conduct of the

landlord in not indicating her intention of such demolition and reconstruction in her letter dated 28.11.87, the subsequent action initiated by landlord

u/s 14(1)(b) has to be construed only with oblique motive and with mala fide intention. In my considered view the test to find out the real intention

of the landlord to file an application u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction shall be only with reference to the real bona fides in

respect of the building as to whether the same has to be demolished and as to whether there was a real intention on the part of the landlord to put

up any construction and not with reference to the past conduct of the landlord.

In this context I may also refer to a judgment reported in Sherwood Educational Society v. Abid Namazie and two others, 1997 (1) L.W. 323

wherein in paragraph 27 the learned Judge has held as follows:-

The next question that arises for consideration is whether the bona fides have been proved. .S.14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act begins with the

words ""that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it"". The law is settled that in considering

bona fides, it is not the intention of the landlord that has to be considered, but the proof must be, the genuineness of the claim. That is proved by

establishing the surrounding circumstances such as the condition of the building, its'' situation, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use,

the means of the landlord and so on. The intention must be honest and in relation to surrounding circumstances. If this is the criterion to arrive at a

finding on bona fides, that also has got to be found in favour of the landlords, for, this point has already been found in favour of the landlords.

In the said judgment the learned Judge has categorically held, while considering the bona fides of the landlord, it is not the intention of the landlord

which has to be considered, but the proof must be, the genuineness of the claim. On the facts of the case once when the intention of the landlord to

demolish and put up construction is established, the genuineness of the claim should be presumed only in favour of the landlord. In this context, it

would be useful to refer to yet another judgment of this Court reported in A.Lakshmanan and others v. Kanniammal @ Pattammal, 1995 (1) L.W.

632 wherein this Court once again has held in paragraph 10 as follows:-

In order to satisfy the test u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, the condition of the building need not have deteriorated to the extent of the building being in

danger of crumbling down but the condition must be such as to Indicate a bona fide requirement for the timely, genuine, and direct purpose of

demolition and reconstruction.

Yet another judgment of this Court reported in A.M.Steel Traders Rep. by its Partners A.M.Ismail and two others v. S. M.M.Mohammed

Fathimathu Zohra and seven others, 1998 (3) L.W. 704 wherein it has specifically held in paragraph 20 as follows:-

Merely because the landlords have demanded higher rent for the premises in question, it cannot be said that the petition seeking possession for

carrying on the business of the children of the landlords is either mala fide or that the application for eviction is filed- with an oblique motive. Only

on that ground alone it cannot be said that the landlord is not having bona fide intention.

On going through the above judgments. I have no hesitation in holding that while adjudginq the intention of the landlord with regard to the bona

fides to file an application u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, the Court has to consider such intention only with reference to the demolition of the building for

reconstruction and not on the basis of past conduct of the landlord prior to the filing of the petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act.

On the above finding it has to be now considered as to whether the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant that the

past conduct of the landlord, as born out on record in this case, would be relevant or not to decide the intention of the landlord to file an

application u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. It is true that the landlord/respondent did not indicate anything about the conditions of the building or the

requirement of the same for demolition and reconstruction in the earlier letter dated 28.11.87 and in the said letter the landlord had merely claimed

an enhanced rent of Rs.500 and also an advance of Rs.25,000 only. It is also not disputed that when the tenant offered the prevailing rent of

Rs.300, the landlord refused to receive the same forcing the tenant finally to file an application u/s 8 (5) of the Act which was allowed by the

Court. It is also clear from the dates of events that immediately after the letter and also after the refusal of the rent offered by the tenant, the present

petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act has been filed by the landlord. The object of the Act is to protect the tenants from eviction at the whims and''

fancies of the landlord. However the Act has clearly enumerated certain grounds under which the eviction of the tenant could be sought. One of the

grounds available to the landlord to seek for eviction is for a demolition and reconstruction u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. As since the application is filed

by the landlord u/s 14(1)(b). the landlord has to satisfy the Rent Controller as to the bona fide requirement of the building for immediate purpose of

demolishing it and after such demolition a new building is to be erected on the said site. Therefore, while considering the bona fide of the landlord,

the intention has to be ascertained only with reference to the conditions stipulated, under Section-14(1)(b) of the Act and not with reference to the

past conduct of the landlord. In my considered view, past conduct may be one of the relevant factor which may also be taken note of by the Court

while deciding'' the bona fides'' of the landlord. However, when the landlord establishes the bona fide intention for demolition and reconstruction of

the building on other materials, merely because such requirement had not been indicated in the earlier letter while demanding enhanced rent and

advance from the tenant, the bona fides of the landlord in filing an application subsequently u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act cannot'' be construed that the

same has been filed only with the sole object of to get rid of the tenant from the premises and that by itself will not take away the right of the

landlord to approach the Rent Controller for demolition and reconstruction u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act. On facts also it is clear that the building is of 78

years old and requires for demolition and reconstruction. Both the Courts below have concurrently held on facts that the building is old, dilapidated

and 15 requires for immediate demolition and also have held that the landlord has sufficient means to put up new building and the landlord has

given undertaking to demolish the building within a period of one month from the dale of getting vacant possession and also by erecting new

building within a period of three months thereafter. In view of the categorical findings of both the Courts below, the bonafide requirement of the

landlord of the premises in question for demolition and reconstruction cannot be disputed. If that be so, the intention of the landlord for demolishing

and putting new building on the site cannot be in any way held to be malafide merely because the landlord did not mention the condition of the

building and the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction in the earlier letter dated 28.11.87.

In that view of the matter. I have no hesitation to hold that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant have no merit

and deserve to be rejected. Accordingly, I reject those contentions and this civil revision petition is dismissed with no costs. Consequently,

C.M.P.No. 12070 of 1999 is also dismissed.