Rajiv Sharma, J.@mdashThis Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.08.2008, passed by the Learned 1st Appellate
Authority in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 20-S/14 of 2007.
2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the Respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as ""the landlord"" for
convenience sake) had filed a petition seeking eviction of the Petitioners-tenants (here in after referred to as ""the tenants"" for brevity sake) on the
ground that the demised premises are required by him for the purpose of rebuilding on old lines, which cannot be carried out without the demised
premises in question is vacated by the tenants. According to the landlord, the building is 100 years old and its wood work has rotten. The walls
and floors have developed cracks. The landlord has requisite funds for the purpose of re-building the demised premises.
3. The tenants contested the petition. According to them, the building is not 100 years old. It is denied that the wood work has rotten and the walls
have developed cracks.
4. The Learned Rent Controller framed the issues on 07.05.2004. He ordered the eviction of the tenants. The tenants preferred an appeal before
the Learned Appellate Authority, Shimla. The same was dismissed on 23.08.2008.
5. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Learned Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that the landlord has failed to prove that the building in question is
required bonafide for the purpose of building/re-building, which cannot be carried out without the same being vacated by the tenants. According to
him, both the Courts below have mis-read the evidence.
6. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Learned Counsel for the Respondent has supported the order passed by the Learned Rent Controller and up-held by the
Learned 1st Appellate Authority.
7. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.
8. The landlord has appeared as PW-1. According to him, the building is 100 years old. The condition of the building is dilapidated. The walls and
floors had developed cracks. It has become unfit for human habitation. He has got the map Ex. PW-1/D duly sanctioned from Municipal
Corporation, Shimla vide sanction letter Ex. PW-1/C. He has proved on record duly sanctioned plan Ex. PW-1/D and copy of extension letter Ex.
PW-1/E, whereby the building plan was extended for a period of one year in 1995. According to him, he will get the further extension. He has
sufficient funds to re-built the building. According to him, the building cannot be re-constructed without the same being vacated by the tenants. He
has also proved in evidence copies of F.D.Rs., Ex. PW-1/F-1 to Ex. PW-1/F-18.
9. PW-2 Shri H.S. Bisht is a qualified diploma holder in Civil Engineering. He has proved in evidence his report Ex. PW-2/A and maps Ex. PW-
2/B and Ex. PW-2/C.
According to him, the building is not 100 years old. He has further testified that upper two storeys of the building are lying vacant. The building is
more than 100 years old. It has developed cracks and is in a dilapidate condition. Temporary supports have been erected to the building.
10. PW-3 Ramesh Chand is a Draftsman of Municipal Corporation. He has testified that the map for reconstruction of the building has been duly
approved vide sanction order, Ex. PW-1/C, as per sanction plan, Ex. PW-4 -1/D. The extension has also been granted for rebuilding on
27.06.1997 vide extension letter, Ex. PW-1/E.
11. PW-4 has supported the version of PW-1. According to him, the building is old and in dilapidated condition. Temporary supports have been
given to it. Its windows and doors are in rotten condition.
12. The tenants have relied upon the technical report marked ''X''. However, the tenants have not examined Mr. Sanjay Karol in support of the
report. The report has not been duly proved. Now, as far as the report, Ex. PW-2/A is concerned, the same has been duly proved by PW-2 Shri
H.S. Bist.
13. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove, is that the building is 100 years old. It has outlived its utility. It is in dilapidated
condition. The walls as well as floors have developed cracks. Temporary supports have been given to support the building. The same cannot be
re-build without vacating it by the tenants. The landlord has sufficient funds with him for the purpose of re-building. The plans had been duly
proved and the extension has also been granted for a period of one year in 1995 and thereafter, the landlord is required to get it renewed from the
competent authority in accordance with law. The landlord has categorically deposed that he will get further extension for construction. It has also
come on the record that in the vicinity, new buildings and hotels have - 5 -been constructed and by rebuilding of the demised premises, its
commercial value would increase. The tenants have not proved the report marked ""X''. It was required to be proved by expert Shri Sanjay Karol.
Accordingly, the landlord has proved that he requires the demised premises bonafide for the purpose of re-building, which cannot be done without
vacating the tenants. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties.
14. Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Metalware and Co. etc. Vs. Bansilal Sarma and Co. etc., while interpreting Section 14(1)
(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 have held that the Rent Controller is required to take into account all the
surrounding circumstances including not merely the factors of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to undertake the project
and steps taken by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put
to a more profitable use after reconstruction. Their Lordships have further held that if the building happens to be decrepit or dilapidated it will
readily make the bona fide requirement of the landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any means being possessed by the landlord would
not be sufficient. Their Lordships have held as under:
6. As stated earlier it cannot be disputed that the phrase used in Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is ''the building is bona fide required by the landlord''
for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction and the same clearly refers to the bona fide requirement of the landlord it is also true
that the requirement in terms is not that the building should need immediate demolition and reconstruction. But we fail to appreciate how the state
or condition of the building and the extent to which it could stand without immediate demolition and reconstruction in future would be a totally
irrelevant factor while determining ""the bona fide requirement of the landlord"". If the Rent Controller has to be satisfied about the bona fide
requirement of the landlord which must mean genuineness of his claim in that behalf the Rent Controller will have to take into account all the
surrounding circumstances including not merely the factors of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to under take the project
and steps taken by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put
to a more profitable use after reconstruction. All these factors being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Controller on the question of the
bona fide requirement of the landlord u/s 14(1)(b). In a sense if the building happens to be decrepit or dilapidated it will readily make for the bona
fide requirement of the landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any means being possessed by the landlord would not be sufficient.
Conversely a landlord being possessed of sufficient means to under take the project of demolition and reconstruction by itself may not be sufficient
to establish his bona fide requirement if the building happens to be a very recent construction in a perfectly sound condition and its situation may
prevent its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. In any case these latter factors may cast a serious doubt on the landlord''s bona
fide requirement. It is, therefore, clear to us that the age and condition of the building would certainly be a relevant factor which will have to be
taken into account while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act and the same cannot be ignored.
7. We would like to observe that each side has adopted an extreme stand on the question at issue which is obviously incorrect. On the one hand
Counsel for the Appellant urged that the words ''bona fide required'' refer to the condition of the building and not to the honest or bona fide
intention entertained by the landlord to undertake demolition and reconstruction, suggesting thereby that the condition of the building should be a
decisive factor while Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contended that that aspect was totally irrelevant and the bona fide requirement
of the landlord should be determined on the basis of factors such as the financial capacity of the landlord to undertake the project and whether he
had taken any steps in that behalf etc. We do not agree that old age and dilapidated condition of the building is a sine qua non or a decisive factor
for eviction u/s 14(1)(b) nor is it possible to accept the view that the said circumstances in totally irrelevant in pronouncing upon the bona fide
requirement of the landlord. We are clearly of the view that the age and existing condition of the building - whether it is a recent construction or
very old and whether it is in a good and sound condition or has become decrepit or dilapidated - are relevant factors forming part of ''all the
circumstances'' that having to be considered while determining the bona fide requirement of the landlord u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act and in the totality
of the circumstances these factors may assume lesser or greater significance depending upon whether in the scheme of the concerned enactment
there is or there is not a provision for reinduction of the evicted tenant into the new construction. Such a view would be in accord with the main
objective of the benign legislation enacted with the avowed intention of giving protection to the tenant.
15. In P.ORR and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited[OVERRULED], their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court
have held that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide
requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant circumstances, requires
demolition. Their Lordships have held as under:
30. We accordingly hold that Section 14(1)(b) is satisfied only if the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the ""immediate"", i.e., direct,
sole and timely purpose of demolishing it with a view to erecting a new building on the site of the existing building. 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 overriding 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 bona fide 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 bona fide
requirement which is timely, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building. The Act does not accept the requirement by the
landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant
circumstances, requires demolition. These are matters which are to be proved by evidence.
16. It will be apt at this stage to refer to Section 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, which reads thus:
14(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 site of the building sought to be demolished.
17. Section 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 is not pari materia with Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal
Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 reads thus:
14(3)(c)- in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance or the Government or local
authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is
required bonafide by him for carrying out repairs which can not be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building
or rented land is required bonafide by him for the purpose of building or re-building or making these to any substantial additions, or alterations and
that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration can not be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated.
18. Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shyamlal Agarwal Vs. Ratanlal Malviya (dead) by Lrs., had the occasion to construe
Section 12(1)(h) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Section 12(1)(h) of the Act permits eviction of tenant from any accommodation on
the ground that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making therein any substantial
addition or alteration. The language employed in Section 12(1)(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is more akin to the phraseology
employed in Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Their Lordships after interpreting Section 12(1)(h) have
held that the building should be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair or demolition was not a statutory requirement. Their Lordships have
further held that there is no statutory requirement that while considering the bona fide need of the landlord for reconstruction of the accommodation
the building must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair without demolition. However, their Lordships have held that even in the
absence of such a provision dilapidated or otherwise, condition of the building would be one of the relevant circumstance while considering the
bona fide of the landlord u/s 12(1)(h) of the Act although that could not be a decisive circumstance in determining the question of bona fide need.
Their Lordships have held as under:
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that the High Court has failed to record any finding that the shop in dispute was in dilapidated
condition or that, it required reconstruction, in the absence of such a finding the landlord'' & bona fide need could not be upheld. He placed
reliance on a number of decisions but since none of them relate to interpretation of Section 12(1)(h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation
Control Act, 1961, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions. Section 12(1)(h) of the Act permits eviction of tenant from any accommodation
on the-ground that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for there purpose of building or rebuilding or making therein any
substantial, addition or alteration. There is no statutory requirement that while, considering the bona fide need of the land-lord for reconstruction of
the accommodation the building must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair. or demolition. Unlike other Rent Control Laws the
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act does not expressly provide for any such condition. But even in the absence of such a provision dilapidated
or otherwise, condition of the building would be one of the relevant circumstance while considering the bona fide need of the landlord u/s 12(1)(h)
of the Act, although that could not be a decisive circumstance in determining the question of bona fide need. Bona fide requirement of the landlord
u/s 12(1)(h) may include many relevant factors i.e. the need of the landlord to put the building for better use to obtain higher income, the condition
of the building, shortage of accommodation and necessity of having larger accommodation. the capacity of the landlord to rebuild the
accommodation, his financial resources etc. All these factors are relevant for the purposes of determining tile question whether the accommodation
is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding the accommodation.
19. Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh etc. etc. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, had again the occasion to consider Section
14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. Their Lordships have culled out the following principles:
For granting permission u/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 bonafide, the Rent Controller has to take into account:
(1) bonafide intention of the landlord for 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 u/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.
20. The principle laid down in Vijay Singh etc. etc. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, were explained and reiterated in Amaiyappa Transport Vs. N.S.
Rajulu, as well.
21. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Venkatesha Gupta and Others, their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court have laid down the
following parameters u/s 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960:
11. We may refer to two decisions of Madras High Court. In S. Raju and Ors. v. K. Nathamani 1998 (3) LW 214, the Constitution Bench
decision has been followed and it has been held that when new buildings with modern amenities have come up in that locality, naturally the building
in question may become unsuitable to the surroundings and a liability, in its present condition, to the landlord. Keeping the building in the same
condition will amount to asking the landlord to shoulder the burden for ever. Tenants may be satisfied with the present state of the building since
they have to pay only a nominal rent but the Rent Control Legislation, beneficial to the landlord and the tenant both, should be interpreted in that
way. For the purpose of proving his bona fides the landlord need only show that he has got the capacity to raise the necessary funds. In A.N.
Srinivasa Thevar Vs. Sundarambal alias Prema, even before the decision by Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh''s case was available, it was held in
the light of the decision in P. Orr & Sons that the availability of the following factors was sufficient to make out a case of bona fide requirement u/s
14(1)(b):
(a) Capacity of the landlord to demolish and to reconstruct is undisputed and also proved satisfactorily; (b) The size of the existing building
occupies only one third of the site, leaving two third behind vacant and unutilized; (c) Demand for additional space: The demised premises is
situated in a busy locality. Therefore, there is a great demand for additional space in the locality which could be met by demolishing the existing
small building and putting up a larger building providing for future development vertically also, by building pucca terraced building; (d) The
economic advantage: A modern construction of a larger building shall certainly yield better revenue and also appreciate in value, when compared to
the asbestos sheet roofed old building.
In that case, it was observed that the existing building was an old, out-model asbestos sheet building proposed to be replaced with better and
modern building which would provide for better quality accommodation to the needs of the present days as the preservation of such building in a
busy locality of a town shall not only be an eyesore but also against the souring public demand for additional space. Viewed from the angle of
general interest of the public which, according to the decision in P. Orr & Sons is one of the considerations, it was observed that a big site should
yield to a larger modern building with an increased and enlarged accommodation having better facilities to solve the ever increasing demand for
more space. Stalling growth and development for the sake of one tenant who is in occupation of an old model building constructed with mud and
mortar and asbestos sheets occupying only one third of the site was held to be not conducive to public interest. We approve the statement of law
and the approach adopted by Madras High Court in both the above said decisions. The structural and physical features and the nature of the
construction of the building cannot be ignored. Even in P. Orr & Sons, this Court was of opinion that various circumstances, such as the capacity
of the landlord, 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 authorities, while considering the requirement for
reconstruction of the building as the essential and overriding consideration in the general interest of the public and for the protection of the tenant
from unreasonable eviction.
22. Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Jagat Pal Dhawan Vs. Kahan Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, had the occasion to
interpret Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1987. Their Lordships have held that while trying
eviction petition on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, Court may look into the age and condition of building, availability of necessary
funds, and whether building plans have been sanctioned by local authority in order to assess landlords'' bona fides, even if the statute concerned
has not specifically made them ingredients of the ground for eviction. Their Lordships have further held that eviction should be allowed where no
material is placed on record to show that landlord''s real intention is only to evict the tenant rather than to raise new construction. In this case also
the building was located in a busy commercial locality, landlord had received sanction for his building plans, had sufficient funds and wished to
demolish the 100 year old suit building to construct a more spacious three storey structure. Their Lordships have further held that if statutory
provision is silent on the subject, bona fide, cannot be doubted solely on ground that building concerned is not in danger of collapse, though old
and outdated. Their Lordships have held as under:
6. Section 14(3)(c) provides inter alia that a landlord may apply to the controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession
of tenancy premises in case of any building or rented land being required bona fide by him for the purpose of building or rebuilding which cannot be
carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. The provision does not have as an essential ingredient thereof and as a relevant factor
the age and condition of the building. The provision also does not lay down that the availability of requisite funds and availability of building plans
duly sanctioned by the local authority must be proved by the landlord as an ingredient of the provision or as a condition precedent to his entitlement
to eviction of tenant. However still, suffice it to observe, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case, the court may look into such
facts as relevant, though not specifically mentioned as ingredient of the ground for eviction, for the purpose of determining the bona fides of the
landlord. If a building, as proposed, cannot be constructed or if the landlord does not have means for carrying out the construction or
reconstruction obviously his requirement would remain a mere wish and would not be bona fide.
10. The locality where the premises are situated has, with the lapse of time, become a busy commercial locality. The structure of the building is
more than 100 years old. It is in mud mortar and with slates'' roofing. Instead of outdated two floor space, the landlord proposes to construct a
modern three-storeyed building which would obviously provide additional space and much better return to the landlord. The landlord has stated
that he had no other residential house of his own available with him and having reconstructed the building he would like to shift his residence too in
his own newly constructed house. The bona fides of such a requirement could not have been doubted solely on the ground that the structure of the
building, though old and outdated, had not gone so weak as was needed to be demolished immediately.
11. So far as the neighbours are concerned, none has objected to the proposed reconstruction. In any case that is a matter to be settled by the
landlord with his neighbours. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted during the course of hearing, and rightly in our opinion, that even if
the neighbours were not agreeable to have the common wall demolished and replaced by a new wall the Appellant was prepared to raise
additional walls of his own next to the common walls, if any, and rest his entire structure on such walls. This obviates the need of proving consent
of the adjoining building owners for the proposed reconstruction.
14. In the above said circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that relief of eviction as sought for could not have been denied to the Appellant.
There is no material available to hold that the landlord has something else in his mind such as getting rid of the tenant without raising construction.
Sub-section (5) of Section 14 of the Act protects the interest of the tenant by guarding against malafide evictions. It provides that where a landlord
has obtained possession of the building or rented land for the purpose of building or rebuilding and puts the building to any other use or lets it out to
any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the controller for an order directing that he shall be
restored to possession of such building or rented land and the controller shall make an order accordingly. This provision would not permit the
building from which the tenant is being evicted being subjected to any other user or misuse.
23. Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in P.S. Pareed Kaka and Others Vs. Shafee Ahmed Saheb, have held that even a good
building can be demolished if landlord considers it to be unsuitable for him and there is no need for the landlord to prove that condition of the
building was such that it required immediate demolition. Their Lordships have held as under:
11. Law is well settled on this aspect. Even if the building is in a good condition, if it is not -suitable for the requirement of the landlord, he can
always demolish even a good building and put up a new building to suit his requirements. It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the
condition of the building is such that it require immediate demolition particularly when the premises is required by the landlord. Therefore, it has to
be held that the finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained and the High Court on reappreciation of the evidence, rightly so, held that the landlord
has established that his need for all the four petition schedule premises is bona fide and reasonable.
24. Their Lordships of the in S. Venugopal Vs. A. Karruppusami and Another, had again the occasion to consider Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. Their Lordships have held that even if the building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be
demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site. Their Lordships have enumerated the following factors:
i) Increase in commercial value of the location which would fetch landlord higher returns from his property apart from serving his own needs,
ii) Funds available with the landlord to reconstruct may not be relevant when builders, financiers and banks are willing to advance the requisite
funds, moreover, when the landlord has obtained plan approval for constriction.
25. Their Lordships have further held that the Court has to take into account bona fide intention of the landlord, the age and condition of the
building and the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. Their Lordships have held as under:
7. On the question of demolition and reconstruction of the premises in question, much was sought to be made out of the fact that the condition of
the building had not been ascertained and, while according to the tenants it was not in a dilapidated condition, according to the landlord it was in a
dilapidated condition. We do not attach much importance to the question as to whether the building was or was not in a dilapidated condition
because Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short ""the Act"") contemplates a building which 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 site of the building sought to be demolished. Therefore, Section 14(1)(b) does not contemplate that the building sought to be
demolished must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition. Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose
of erecting a new building on the same site.
8. In the instant case, it is obvious that the locality in which the premises in question is located has developed into a commercial locality. The
building needed by the landlord is a single-storey building, whereas a large number of multi-storeyed buildings have come up in that locality. The
landlord realises that if he demolishes the old structure and erects a new multi storeyed building, he will get a much better return of his investment.
He, of course, asserts that in the newly constructed building he also requires space for conducting his own business.
9. There is also evidence on record to establish that the landlord had applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved for
construction of a new building after demolishing the old structure. The landlord also asserted that he wanted to invest a sum of Rs One-and-a-half
lakhs on the construction. The High Court, however, after recording a finding '' of fact that the building was in a dilapidated condition, rejected the
claim of the landlord on the ground that he had not satisfactorily established before the Court that he had the means to reconstruct the building and
that he had not given details relating to his means to construct a new building. Moreover, he had not disclosed, how was he going to raise funds for
reconstruction.
10. It is true that in granting permission u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, all relevant materials for recording a finding about the requirement of the landlord
for demolishing the building and reconstruction of a new building have to be taken into account. The Rent Controller reached the conclusion that
the landlord bona fide requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction of a new building. This Court has observed in Vijay Singh etc. etc.
Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, that the court must take into account the bona fide intention of the landlord, the age and condition of the building, and
the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into
account and, they are by no means conclusive.
11. In the instant case, we find that the property owned by the landlord, whatever may have been its value in the past, has acquired commercial
value and, therefore, the landlord wishes to demolish the old single-storey structure and to construct a multi-storeyed building which may fetch him
higher rent, apart from serving his own needs. The landlord had already applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved. Taking
into consideration all these reasons, we are convinced that the landlord bona fide intends to demolish the old building and to construct a new one.
Raising funds for erecting a structure in a commercial centre is not at all difficult when a large number of builders, financiers as well as banks are
willing to advance funds to erect new structures in commercial areas. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was
willing to invest a sum of Rs One-and-a-half lakhs of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs.
26. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
However, in the interest of justice, in view of the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Harrington House School
Vs. S.M. Ispahani and Another, though the orders passed by both the authorities are upheld/sustained, however, it is directed that only on the valid
revised/renewed building plans being sanctioned by the competent authority, the order of eviction shall be available for execution. The valid
revised/renewed sanctioned or approved building plans shall be produced before the executing court whereupon the executing court shall allow a
reasonable time to the tenants for vacating the property and delivering possession to the landlord. Till then the tenant shall remain liable to pay
charges for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which they are being paid earlier. Subject to these modifications, the orders
passed by both the authorities below are maintained. No costs.
