@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G. Rajasuria, J.@mdashInveighing the order dated 24.02.2010 passed in RCA No. 6 of 2005 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, in
confirming the order dated 22.09.2005 passed in RCOP No. 2 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal, this civil revision
petition is focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
(i) The respondent herein preferred RCOP No. 2 of 2004 invoking Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
[hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''] seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The matter was contested.
(ii) On the side of the landlord, he examined himself as P.W.1 along with Shrikumar/P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the
tenant, he examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R3. Ultimately, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction as against which the
appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders passed by both the Courts below, this revision
has been filed on various grounds.
4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument that the appellate
authority miserably failed to consider the lack of bona fides on the part of the landlord in seeking evition. Even though unsatisfactorily the lower
Court gave some reason relating to the alleged bona fides of the landlord, the appellate authority did not advert to the said important ingredient,
namely the bona fide requirement of the landlord of the demised premises on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Accordingly, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner would pray for allowing the RCOP and for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below.
5. On the other hand, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the tenant, the learned Counsel
for the landlord, would submit his arguments, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:
Both the Courts below elaborately discussed the pros and cons of the matter and gave a categorical finding that the building is actually in a
dilapidated condition warranting demolition and reconstruction. The Courts below also considered the bona fide requirement of the landlord.
Absolutely there is nothing on record to show that the landlord was actuated and propelled by the mala fide intention to evict the tenant.
Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the respondent would pray for the dismissal of the revision petition.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the appellate authority did not take into consideration the important ingredient of Section 14(1)(b) of
the the Act, so to say, the bona fide requirement of the landlord in seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and whether
there is any perversity or illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below?
7. I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court relating to Section 14(1)(b) of the Act:
(i) S. Venugopal Vs. A. Karruppusami and Another, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
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.
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-storied 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 lakh of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs.
(ii) 1997 (1) L.W. 218 - Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
14. It appears from the facts of the present appeals that the building in question was an old one and was situated in a very busy locality of the town
where a number of buildings in and around the building in question had been demolished and shopping complex had been constructed with modern
amenities. The respondent also wanted to demolish the entire building in order to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary
permission from the municipal authorities had already been obtained. It had also been claimed on behalf of the respondent that she had sufficient
financial resources for construction of the new building. An understanding had also been given on behalf of the respondent that the work of
demolition of the building would commence within one month and would be completed before the expiry of the three months from the date the said
respondent recovered possession of the building. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Controller had passed an order in terms of
Section 14(1)(b) of the Act directing the appellants who were tenants in the building in question to delivery possession of the building to the
respondent. According to us, all relevant factors have been taken into consideration and there is no scope for any interference by this Court. As
such, we are left with no option but to dismiss these appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
8. A mere poring over and perusal of the aforesaid decisions would amply make the point clear that in a matter of this nature, the landlord even
though not bound to prove that there is likelihood of immediate falling of the building, yet the Court has to consider the age of the building and has
to analyse as to whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. The Court also is enjoined to look into the fact that whether the landlord''s
intention was galvanised and actuated by mala fides, spite or ill will as against the tenant.
9. The deposition of P.W.1, the landlord and P.W.2., the Engineer, examined on the side of the landlord would clearly exemplify and demonstrate,
convey and portray that the building is actually in a dilapidated condition. It is one thing to label a building as an old one, yet it is another thing to
describe it a dilapidated one. The contention of the landlord is that the building is in a dilapidated condition warranting demolition and
reconstruction and it is buttressed and fortified by both oral and documentary evidence. The expert, namely the Engineer would speak about the
cracks developed in the building, which is eighty years old. Over and above that, in the suit filed by the tenant seeking injunction as against the
landlord, a Commissioner was got appointed to visit the suit property and furnish his detailed report and accordingly a report was filed, which also
was relied on by the Court as Ex.P4. As such, it would exemplify and demonstrate that the finding of the lower Court is not based on conjectures
and surmises, but based on concrete report warranting no interference.
10. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant inviting the attention of this Court to the ingredients of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act would
submit that it is not enough if the dilapidated condition of the building alone is considered by the appellate authority, but the appellate authority
should give a specific finding relating to the bona fides of the landlord. In my opinion the distinction sought to be made is one that of tweedledum
and tweedledee, six of the one and half a dozen of the other and it is not between one that of chalk and cheese. In fact, the very bed rock of the
prayer of the landlord is that the building is in a dilapidated condition and it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction and for that alone he
requires the demised premises and not for any other purpose. Once that condition has been proved by overwhelming evidence, then the question
of inferring of bona fides is automatic. There are cases in which there would be lot of allegations which are capable of being heaped upon the head
of the landlord as malice as well as ill will, but this is not a case of that nature. The learned Rent Controller threadbare discussed the evidence and
gave a specific finding by using the Tamil equivalent word for good intention etc. No doubt, the appellate authority might not have used similar
Tamil word, but he in various places in his judgment pointed out as to how the intention of the landlord was justifiable and capable of being
accepted, upheld and countenanced. In such a case, I am at a loss to understand as to what else could be expected from the appellate authority in
summary proceedings in arriving at his conclusion relating to Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there are
no valid grounds for interfering with the orders passed by both the Courts below. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would make an extempore submission that as bad luck would have it, the tenant while
returning from the High Court after attending the Court hearing in this case fell on the Railway track and sustained severe fracture of his backbone
and that he became immobilised and accordingly, the learned Counsel prays atleast a year''s time for vacating the premises. Whereupon, the
learned Counsel for the landlord would submit that granting six months'' time would meet the ends of justice. By way of striking a balance between
the two, I would like to grant nine months'' time for handing over the vacant possession of the demised premises, subject to payment of rent
regularly and an affidavit of undertaking to that effect shall be filed within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for which the
learned Counsel for the tenant would submit that virtually the tenant is on the verge of coma stage and in such a case, on his behalf his wife might
be permitted to file the affidavit of undertaking. As such, the wife of the tenant is permitted to file the same.
