MISRILAL RAMRATAN MANSUKHLAL Vs. A S SHAIK FATHIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of appeals arising against the common judgment of the Madras High court in CRPs Nos. 1633 to 1635 and 3044 to 3060 and 3900 to 3902 of 1982 dated 27/1/1984 reversing the judgments of the appellate court (Small Causes) and also Rent Controller and directing eviction of the appellant tenants. The landlord filed an application under Section 14 (l) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Act 18 of 1960 for short 'the Act'. The gravamen of the plea of the landlord is that the demised building requires immediate demolition and that he had necessary capacity to reconstruct it. On that premise he filed separate applications for eviction of the appellants. The appellants resisted the contention and also produced evidence in proof that the building does not require demolition, but requires only repairs. The Rent Controller found that the building does not require demolition. In the appellate court, the landlord filed an application to receive the sanctioned plan of 1928 afid also for appointment of the Commissioner to inspect the building and submit the report. Consequently, a Superintending Engineer came to be appointed as Commissioner. The Commissioner submitted his report which is marked as Annx. H.

(2.) The appellate authority agreed with the trial court and confirmed the orders of dismissal of the petitioners for eviction. The High court considered the reasons of the evidence of the courts below in rejecting the applications. Three grounds were stated by the courts below for rejecting the application, namely the age of the building, sanction for reconstruction was not obtained and also whether the building requires demolition. On the plea of the landlord, the High court found that in view of the evidence given by the landlord he had necessary capacity and the conclusion reached by the courts below was not correct. The age of the building was determined on the basis of the sanctioned plan of 1928 and -concluded that the age of the building is 70 years' old. With regard to the nature of the building, the High court relied upon the report of the Superintendent Engineer. Even, the appellate court also relied upon that evidence but further it found that a building required repairs as per the report of the Commissioner. Therefore, the need for eviction does not arise. The High court after going through the report of the Commissioner has considered that the building needs demolition and that therefore directed eviction.

(3.) Shri Sundaravaradan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the approach of the High court is manifestly illegal. We find no force in the contention. It is now settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of the record and that therefore the report cannot be overlooked or rejected on spacious plea of non-examination of the Commissioner as a witness since it is part of the record of the case. We havegone through the report submitted by Shri Sundaravaradan and the High court is clearly right in its conclusion that the age of the building as per the sanctioned plan of 1928 is 70 years and the building requires demolition. In fact, it is undisputed that the landlord obtained sanction from the Municipal Corporation for demolition of the building. What was lacking thereafter was that he did not obtain sanction for reconstruction. This is one of the grounds for rejecting the application for eviction. Undertaking was given that within six months from the date of the construction, he would obtain necessary sanction. Under these circumstances, we find that the High court is right in reaching the conclusion that the landlord has established the need for demolition of the building for reconstruction as envisaged under Section 14 (l) (b) of the Act. The appeals are dismissed. However three months' time is granted to the appellants for vacating the premises with usual undertaking. The undertaking shall be filed within one month from today.