K M ABDUL RAZZAK Vs. DAMODHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant herein, is the tenant. The respondent-landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller at Madurai for eviction of the appellant-tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case of the landlord was that the building is in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, it requires demolition and reconstruction. The landlord also stated that he has sufficient funds to raise the new construction. The Rent Controller, before whom the aforesaid petition was filed, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the disputed premises and submit a report in respect thereof. The Commissioner inspected the premises with the help of a Chartered Engineer and submitted his report. In his report the Commissioner found that the premises was old one, but was not in a dilapidated condition so as to require demolition and reconstruction. Parties also led evidence in respect thereof. The Rent Controller after considering the entire material on record, recorded a finding that building is not in a dilapidated condition so as to require demolition and reconstruction and, therefore, the landlord was not in a bona fide need of the premises. The Rent Controller recorded a further finding that the financial condition of the appellant is not such as he could raise construction after demolition. With these findings the petition filed by the landlord was dismissed. The landlord thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Act. The appellate authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller as regards the condition of the premises. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The landlord thereafter preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court. The High Court, after reassessing the evidence was of the view that the building is in a dislapidated condition, the appellant had adequate funds to raise the construction, and further the landlord is in bona fide need of the premises. After recording the said findings the High Court set aside the judgment of the Court below and allowed the revision. It is against the said judgment the tenant is in appeal before us.

(2.) Learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the High Court in exercise of its revisional power could not have reassessed or re-evaluated the evidence on record afresh and come to a different finding and thus, the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. This has been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. He urged that, in view of the change in law, the High Court was perfectly justified in recording a different finding than what was recorded by the Court below and the judgment does not suffer from any infirmity.

(3.) Before we take up the arguments of the parties we would like to notice here the legal position prevailing at the time when the landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Section 14(1)(b) reads as under: