@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. The unsuccessful landlords before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority are the revision petitioners.
2. The revision petitioners filed H.R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1993 in the Rent Control Court at Pondicherry for the eviction of the respondent/tenant from
the petition non-residential premises bearing old door No.1 and new door No.261, Ananda Rangapillai Street, Pondicherry u/s 14(1)(b) of the
Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as ""the Act"") for demolition and reconstruction. The house is situate
at the junction of the Ananda Rangapillai Street and West Boulieward and now known as Anna Salai and the house is facing north in Ananda
Rangapillai Street and the western side of the said house facing west Boulieward, a part of the house and converted into a shop and let out to the
respondent for non-residential purpose. The property devolved upon the revision petitioners 1 and 2, on the death of Balasundaram, the father of
the revision petitioners 1 and 2 and the rent is collected by the third revision petitioner, the mother of the revision petitioners 1 and 2. On the death
of Balasundaram, the entire house was divided into two equally between the revision petitioners 1 and 2. Since the third revision petitioner is
collecting the rent, she is added as a formal party. The building is old and in dilapidated condition and it is more than 80 years old. The building is
also not strong. Pillars had to be raised additionally to the walls which had been old. The raising of the first floor is not possible. After the partition,
the use of common entrance of the building is not possible between the revision petitioners 1 and 2 and so, the second revision petitioner intends to
have independent entrance on the western side to his portion of the building. For that purpose, the second revision petitioner intends to demolish
his portion and also applied for necessary sanction. The second revision petitioner intends to construct a residential-cum-commercial building for
better returns and the second revision petitioner also obtained estimate through a competent Engineer.
3. The petition was resisted by the tenant that the petition premises is not part and parcel of the building bearing old No.1 and new door No.261
Ananda Rangapillai Street and it has no connection with the building bearing door No.261. The premises has a separate entrance and it is no way
connected with the building bearing door No.261. On the western side of the building, facing west Boulieward, there are four shops with separate
entrance to each shop and separate door numbers. The respondent is a tenant in the premises. The respondent was paying the rents to the third
revision petitioner and in December, 1992, the petitioners demanded enhanced rent of Rs.1,200/- per month. Though the tenant agreed to enhance
the rent of Rs.200/- per month to the rent already payable by him, the offer was not acceptable by the third revision petitioner. So, the respondent
is sending the rents through money order. The building is not old and in dilapidated condition. The other averments in the Rent Control Original
Petition with regard to the condition of the building are all incorrect. In fact, the upstairs portion of the terrace of the premises was constructed
recently. Even though there are four shops facing West Boulieward, the eviction proceedings have been initiated only in respect of the petition
shops. The petition has been filed only to evict from two shops and in respect of other two shops no steps have been taken. The revision
petitioners 1 and 2 have got a common entrance and so there is no necessity to have separate entrance on the western side. It is denied that the
second revision petitioner wants to construct a residential-cum-commercial building for better returns. The second revision petitioner has no
sufficient funds to put up new construction after demolition.
4. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence of the second revision petitioner as P.W.1 and the evidence of Civil Engineer, as
P.W.2 besides Exs.A-1 to A-13 marked on the side of the revision petitioners and also taking into consideration the evidence of the
respondent/tenant as R.W.1, found that the requirement of the petition premises for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide, in that no
evidence has been let in on the side of the revision petitioners to obtain estimate and sanction in respect of other two shops though such steps were
taken in respect of the shops bearing door Nos.275 and 277 at Anna Salai and without going into the financial aspects to put up new construction
after demolition, ultimately dismissed the Rent Control Original Petition. The order is challenged in the Rent Control Appeal and the Rent Control
Appellate Authority in confirming the finding of the Rent Controller and also relying on the report of the advocate-commissioner appointed at the
appellate stage and the photographs of the new construction that the first floor has been constructed recently and as such the petition premises is in
good condition and accepting the case of the respondent/tenant that since he refused to pay enhanced rent of Rs.1,200/- as claimed by the third
revision petitioner and was willing to pay enhanced rent of Rs.950/-, ultimately dismissed the appeal. The said judgment is challenged in this Civil
Revision Petition.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that inasmuch as the revision petitioners 1 and 2 along with their mother, the third
revision petitioner joined together filed the eviction petition stating that the petition non-residential premises was allotted to the share of the second
revision petitioner and to that effect the second revision petitioner as P.W.1 also gave evidence that out of the entire extent of the building, viz., 764
square feet and more particularly out of 22 feet and 9 inches x 9 feet and 9 inches, an extent of 8 feet and 11 inches x 9 feet and 9 inches was
allotted to his share, which portion is sought for eviction and though the said portion is part of building, eviction of that portion can be ordered. The
learned counsel in this regard also pointed out that the revision petitioners have proved the bona fide requirement of the portion in the petition
premises allotted to the share of the second revision petitioner for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction as a residential-cum-commercial
building for better returns.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/tenant has argued that the requirement of the portion of the building in the petition premises is not bona
fide for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction as claimed by the revision petitioners. The learned counsel also argued that necessary
sanction has not been obtained in respect of the petition premises and the report of the advocate-commissioner appointed in the appeal stage also
reveal that the petition premises is in good condition, since new construction had been put up in the first floor.
7. It is not in dispute that the entire petition premises belongs to the revision petitioners 1 and 2 and their mother, the third revision petitioner.
Though it is their case that in the oral partition between the brothers, viz., the revision petitioners 1 and 2, the portion in the petition premises was
allotted to the share of the second revision petitioner and on that aspect, there is only self speaking evidence of the second revision petitioner as
P.W.1. Such partition has not been proved. However, since the revision petitioners joined together filed the Rent Control Original Petition, the
petition as filed for eviction is maintainable.
8. The petition premises is a part of the building bearing old door No.1 and new door No.261, Ananda Rangapillai Street, Pondicherry and the
premises in the occupation of the respondent is bearing old door No.111-D and new door No.273 with entrance at west Bouleward, Pondicherry.
The premises is a single room measuring to an extent of 22 feet and 9 inches x 9 feet and 9 inches with independent entrance and occupied by the
respondent as tenant. In that portion, according to the revision petitioners 8 feet and 11 inches x 9 feet and 9 inches was allotted to the second
revision petitioner in the oral partition between the revision petitioners 1 and 2 and that portion is required bona fide for the purpose of demolition
and reconstruction to yield better returns. Therefore, it is clear that only a part of the building is required for the purpose of demolition and
reconstruction.
9. The learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dealt at length that Exs.A-2 to A-4 and A-13 relates only to
shops bearing door Nos.275 and 277 and not to the petition premises bearing door No.273. Sanction and Estimate obtained under Exs.A-2 to A-
4 and A-13 only relates to the shop bearing door No.275 in respect of which shop it appears an ex parte decree was passed under Ex.A-1 in
H.R.C.O.P.No.13 of 1993 and for other shop bearing door No.277. The inspection said to have been made by P.W.2 and the documents
Exs.A-2 to A-4 and A-13 only relates to the shops bearing door Nos.275 and 277 and not in respect of the petition premises shop bearing door
No.273 as admitted by P.W.2 Engineer in his evidence. Though the order in H.R.C.O.P.No.13 of 1993 dated 20.4.1993 is marked as Ex.A-1,
copy of the said Rent Control Original Petition has not been marked. It is seen from Ex.A-1 that though the said eviction petition was filed u/s
14(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction and though the said petition was filed by the revision petitioners joining together, it is not
known as to which of the revision petitioners, the said shop was required, in that the copy of the said Rent Control Original Petition has not been
marked.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, though it is set out in the Rent Control Original Petition that the first
floor portion cannot be constructed on the old building, since the foundation is week, in fact the construction put up in the first floor during the
pendency of the Rent Control Appeal which fact came to light by the visit of the advocate-commissioner who has filed report along with the
photographs of reconstruction. As such, it is clear that the petition premises is very much in sound condition inasmuch as reconstruction has been
put up in the first floor.
11. The case of the revision petitioners is that new construction is to be put up after demolition of the old building. Though it can be seen from
Exs.A-5 to A-12 that the revision petitioners can raise funds for the purpose of new construction, in view of the fact the revision petitioners failed
to prove that necessary estimate and sanction had been obtained under Exs.A-2 to A-4 and A-13 which only relate to shops bearing door
Nos.275 and 277 and not to the petition premises bearing door No.273 and since the revision petitioners failed to prove that in the oral partition,
the portion as claimed by the revision petitioners to the extent of 8 feet and 11 inches x 9 feet and 9 inches out of the petition shop measuring the
extent of 22 feet and 9 inches x 9 feet and 9 inches was allotted to the share of the second revision petitioner. It is not even stated as to when there
was such oral partition. Therefore, if all the facts are considered, it cannot be said that the requirement of the portion in the petition shop, viz., 273
is required bona fide to the second revision petitioner for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. In that view, the dismissal of the Rent
Control Original Petition as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority need not be interfered.
12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 10.3.1999 made in M.A.No.8 of 1994 on the
file of the II Additional District Court, Pondicherry are confirmed.
