Logithakshan v. E.S.Rahima Bibi2. K.K.Sahul Hameed3. K.K.Mohideen Basha4. K.K.Mohamed Farooq5. K.K.Mustappa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:05.12.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCivil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos.1972 to 1974 of 1994Logithakshan.... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.1972/1994Murugesan.... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.1973/1994K.S.Kannayan.... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.1974/1994 Vs.1. E.S.Rahima Bibi2. K.K.Sahul Hameed3. K.K.Mohideen Basha4. K.K.Mohamed Farooq5. K.K.Mustappa.... Respondents in all the petitions/Land LordCivil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 25 of theTamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 against thefair and decretal order dated 21.3.1994 made in R.C.A.Nos. 16 of1991,15 of 1991 and 14 of 1991 respectively on the file ofDistrict Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Nilgirisconfirming the fair and decretal order dated 14.12.1990 made inR.C.O.P.Nos.13 of 1988,9 of 1988 and 8 of 1988 respectively on thefile of Rent Controller,Gudaloor.For Petitioner inall petitions : : Mr. Muthumani Doraisami Senior Advocate for Mr.A.Anthony Nirmal For respondentsin all petitions : : Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan,Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N O R D E R C.R.P(NPD)No.1973/1994: The tenant in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1988 is the revisionpetitioner herein. The said petition was filed by thelandlords/respondents under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil NaduBuildings( Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960(hereinafter referredto as 'the Act") for demolition and reconstruction on the groundthat the petition building is very old and in a dilapidatedcondition. The tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1988 hasfiled a counter contending that the building is sound and there isno need to demolish the same and only for the purpose of demandinghigher rent, the vexatious petition has been filed by thelandlords.2. On behalf of the landlords/ respondents one Shakarun BiAmeed was examined as P.W.1. apart from examining one Thangappan,Photograper as P.W.2. Exs P1 to P10 were marked on the side of thelandlord. On the side of the tenant , the revision petitioner wasexamined as R.W.1 and the reply notice dated 13.7.1988 was markedas Ex R1. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to ascertain theage of the building and also the present condition of thebuilding. The learned Advocate Commissioner with the help of anAssistant Engineer,P.W.D., had visited the petition schedulebuilding and filed his report Ex C1 and Plan Ex C2. After goingthrough both oral and documentary evidence, the learned RentController has come to a conclusion that the landlords areentitled to the relief as prayed for in the petition andaccordingly allowed the petition, giving three months time to thetenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to thelandlord. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned RentController, the tenant had preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.15 of1991 ,wherein the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority hasheld that there is no material to interfere with the findings ofthe learned Rent Controller, has dismissed the appeal therebyconfirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, whichnecessitated the tenant to prefer C.R.P.(NPD) No.1973/1994.C.R.P(NPD) No.1974 of 1994:3.This revision petition was preferred against the Judgmentin R.C.A.No.14 of 1991 on the file of the learned Rent ControlAppellate Authority/ District Judge,Nilgiris which had arisen outof an order in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1988 on the file of learned RentController, Gudaloor, which was filed under Section 14(1)(b) ofthe Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. On behalf of the landlords one Shakarun Bi Ameed wasexamined as P.W.1 and Thangappan, Photographer was examined asP.W.2 Exs P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the landlords. Thetenant has examined himself as R.W.1 besides exhibiting Ex R1reply notice dated 13.7.1988. An Advocate Commissioner wasappointed to assess the stability of the building with the help ofan expert , an Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. The AdvocateCommissioner has visited the petition schedule building and filedhis report Ex C1 and Plan Ex C2. On the basis of the evidenceboth oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller has come toa conclusion that the landlords are entitled to an order ofeviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act against therespondent/tenant and accordingly allowed the petition, givingthree months time to the tenant to vacate and hand over thepossession of the petition schedule building. Aggrieved byfindings of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant has preferredan appeal in R.C.A.No.14 of 1991 before the learned Rent ControlAppellate Authority/District Judge, Nilgiris, who had concurredwith the findings of the learned Rent Controller had dismissed theappeal, which necessitated the tenant to prefer C.R.P.No.1974 of1994.5. Heard Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel appearingfor the respondents, who would contend that since both the Courtsbelow have concurrently held that the buildings in both rentControl Original Petitions are in a dilapidated condition and arerequired for demolition and reconstruction, had allowed the rentcontrol original petitions filed by the landlords and this Courtexercising the revisional power cannot interfere with the findingsregarding the facts unless the Judgment of the Appellate Authorityin both the appeals are perverse in nature to warrant interferencefrom this Court in these revisions.6. Both the Courts below relying on Ex C1 Commissioner'sreport and ExC2 plan have come to a definite conclusion that boththe buildings are in a dilapidated condition have ordered evictionto enable the landlords to demolish and reconstruct the same. Itis also brought to the notice of this Court that thetenant/revision petitioner in both petitions have not filed anyobjection to the Commissioner's report ExC1 and Plan Ex C2 in boththe cases.7. Relying on a decision reported in Narayanan-v-Chandrasekaran(2005(3) CTC 693) ,the learned counsel appearing forthe respondents/landlords would contend that when the landlordsestablished that he had sufficient funds to demolish andreconstruct and that the fact the building is in a dilapidatedcondition was proved by an expert opinion, the landlord is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of theAct. The relevant observations at paragraph 25 runs as follows:" Therefore, it is clear on such evidenceadduced on either side that the petitionbuilding is more than 100 years old and some ofthe portions are Madras terraced and someportions are tiled roofing, especially theportions occupied by the tenants Narayanan andSivasamy are tiled roofing and in fact a wallhas been raised to support the roofing in theportion occupied by the tenant Narayanan. Inthe modern improved Engineering Technology, theportions occupied by the tenants Narayanan andSivasamy alone can be demolished and newconstruction can be put up. The landlord hasgot sufficient means to put up new constructionand in fact he has deposited a sum of Rs.8Lakhs in his name and in the name of his wifeand mother in Karaikudiand Mayiladurai.Admittedly, the landlord owned other buildingsand as such, funds can be raised through thatbuildings also.". . . . . . . . . Therefore,the requirement of the petition premises inboth the petitions, subject matter of theserevisions as sought for by the landlord isbonafide and the learned Rent Control AppellateAuthority rightly confirmed the eviction orderof the learned Rent Controller, considering allthese aspects that the requirement of petitionpremises for demolition and reconstruction isbonafide."The cases on hand also, the landlords has produced Ex P7certificate issued by the Bank to show that they had sufficientfunds to undertake the construction.8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents wouldsubmit that once the landlord is able to prove that he is inpossession of sufficient income to reconstruct the same and thatthe building is in a dilapidated condition requires immediatedemolition and reconstruction, under Rent Control Act, he isentitled to get an order of eviction. For this proposition oflaw, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would relyon a ratio decidenti in P.S.Pareed Kaka and others-v-Shafee AhmedSaheb(2004(2) CTC 364) wherein the Honourable Apex Court has heldin an appeal which had arisen out of the provisions of KarnatakaRent Control Act 1961, as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Law is well settled on this aspect Even ifthe building is in a good condition, if it isnot suitable for the requirement of thelandlord, he can always demolish even a goodbuilding and put up a new building to suit hisrequirements. It is not necessary for thelandlord to prove that the condition of thebuilding is such that it requires immediatedemolition, particularly when the premises isrequired by the landlord. Therefore, it has tobe held that the finding of the trial Courtcannot be sustained and the High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, rightly so, heldthat the landlord has established that his needfor all the four petition schedule premises isbona fide and reasonable."Further referring to an earlier decision of the Honourable ApexCourt in Harrington House School.v.Ispathani and another(2002(2)CTC 549 : 2002 SC 2268),it is further being held that:"In the present case it has been found thatthe building is an old construction requiringdemolition and reconstruction. Out of thetotal area of the property only a part isbuilt up and substantial portion is lying openand vacant. There is pressure of populationon the developing city and several multi-storey complexes have come up in the vicinityof the property. There is nothing to cast ashadow of doubt in a bona fides of thelandlords pleading an immediate need fordemolition followed by reconstruction. Nofault can be found with the finding of thefact arrived at by the High Court. Thedecision by the Appellate Court was renderedon 25th February, 1994 when three Judge Benchdivision of this Court in P.Orr.& Sons washolding the field and in view of theconstruction placed by this Court in P.Orr &Sons , the Appellate Court was persuaded todeny eviction inspite of the findings of factsbeing for the landlord. The High Court hasrightly set aside the Judgment of theAppellate Authority and ordered evictionfollowing the law laid down by theConstitution Bench in Vijay Singh & Otherscase. It is true that the landlords have notpleaded on the age and condition of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ building as one of the components of theirbona fides but the landlords' need."In Vijay Singh and others-VijayalakshmiAmmal,1996(2) CTC 586: 1996(6) CTC 475, thisCourt has observed in para 10 as follows:" On reading Section 14(1)(b) along withSection 16 it can be said that is immaterial.The age and condition of the building has beendetermined and is available for assessing thebona fides of for eviction of a tenant on theground of demolition of the building forerecting a new building, the building need notbe dilapidated or dangerous for humanhabitation. If that was the requirement thereis no occasion to put a condition to demolishwithin a specified time, and to erect a newbuilding on the same site. Sub Section (1) ofSection 16 contemplates that permission hasbeen granted by the Rent Controller underSection 14(1)(b) for demolition of thebuilding, but if such demolition is notcarried out in terms of the order andundertaking, then the Rent Controller canorder the landlord to put the tenant inpossession of the building on the originalterms and conditions. If the building isdangerous and dilapidated requiring immediatedemolition for safety, then there is noquestion of the Rent Controller directing thelandlord to put the tenant in possession ofsuch building on the original terms andconditions, on account of the failure of thelandlord to commence the demolition within theperiod prescribed. Similarly, there was nooccasion to link the demolition of suchbuilding with erection of new building andthen to give the landlord freedom from therestrictive provisions of the Act for a periodof five years from the date on which theconstruction of such new building is completedand notified to the local authoritiesconcerned. In this background, it has to beheld that neither of the extreme positiontaken by the respondent or the appellants canbe accepted. Permission under Section 14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controlleror mere asking of the landlord, that heproposes to immediately demolish the buildingin question to erect a new building. At the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same time , it is difficult to accept thestand of the appellants that the building mustbe dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for humanhabitation. For granting permission underSectioon 14(1)(b) of Rent Controller isexpected to consider all relevant materialsfor recording a finding whether therequirement of the landlord for demolition ofthe building and erection of a new building onthe same site is bona fide or not. Forrecording a finding that requirement fordemolition was bona fide, the Rent Controllerhas to take into account(1) bona fideintention of the landlord far from the soleobject only to get rid of the tenants;(2) theage and condition of the buildings;(3) thefinancial position of the landlord to demolishand erect a new building according to thestatutory requirements of the Act. These aresome of the illustrative factors which have tobe taken into consideration before an order ispassed under Section 14(1)(b)."The learned Rent Controller has taken into consideration , thebona fide requirements of the landlord, also considered the ageand condition of the building with the help of the AdvocateCommissioner's report which was prepared with the help of anAssistant Engineer, P.W.D and also after considering the financialsound status of the landlords as per Ex P7, has come to adefinite conclusion that the landlords are entitled to get anorder under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act in both the cases whichwas confirmed in the appeal by the learned Rent Control AppellateAuthority in both RCAs, I do not find any reason to interfere withthe findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority inR.C.A.Nos.15 of 1991 and 14 of 1991 respectively on the file ofthe learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Nilgiris.9.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in bothrevisions would contend that the eviction was ordered in the year1990 and the escalation cost of building construction materialshave risen on many-fold and that he would press for his cost. Iam of the view that the request of the learned counsel appearingfor the respondents/landlords is reasonable and hence both theC.R.P.Nos 1973 & 1974 of 1994 are dismissed with cost ofRs.3,000/- in each revision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. CRP.1972 of 1994 is dismissed as infructuous because thelearned counsel appearing for the respondents would state that thetenant/revision petitioner had already vacated and handed over thepossession to the landlords. No costs.sgSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo 1.The District Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Nilgiris2.The Rent Controller, Gudaloor.3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court,Madras.+ 4 ccs to Mr. K. P. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, SR No.71845, 71846+ 1 cc to M/s. Muthumani Doraisami, Advocate, SR No.72046 CRP(NPD)Nos.1972 to 1974/1994SJ(CO)SR/6.12.2007