METALWARE AND CO S JATANMAL SAMANDARIYA JAYANTILAL JAYNARAYANJEE S JATANMAL SAMANDARIYA Vs. BANSILAL SARMA AND CO :PRAKASHMAL BHANDARI:PRAKASHMAL BHANDARI:PRAKASHMAL BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals preferred by tenants by special leave raise a common question whether while considering the bona fide requirement of the building by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (as amended by Act 23 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the condition of the building is a wholly irrelevant factor

(2.) Since the facts giving rise to the aforesaid question in all these appeals are almost similar it will suffice if the facts in C. A. Nos. 2087-2088/78 are stated. The appellant Matelware and Co., a proprietary concern has been a tenant of the premises in dispute, namely, a shop on the ground floor of door Number 425 Mint Street, George Town, Madras-1 since 1953. The respondents (landlords) purchased the building from its erstwhile owner some time in 1975 and filed applications against all the tenants thereof including the appellant for evicting them under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act alleging that the building being very old and dilapidated required immediate demolition and reconstruction and they bona fide required it for the said purpose for their occupation. The respondents further alleged that they were possessed of sufficient means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction and had applied for and obtained from the Municipal Corporation sanctioned plans in that behalf and after duly terminating the tenancies has sought vacant possession. The application was resisted by the appellant on several grounds. Inter alia, the claim of the landlords that the building was bona fide required by the them for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction was seriously disputed; in particular it was emphatically denied that the building was in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition and reconstruction; so also the allegation that the respondents had sufficient means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction. Admittedly the building was over 70 year old but as regards the existing condition thereof the landlords were able to produce merely one Notice (Ex. P-1) received from the Municipal Corporation requiring them to carry out repairs specified therein which clearly showed that the building could not be said to be in any dilapidated condition needing demolition. The Rent Controller (7th Judge Small Causes Court, Madras) on the evidence led before him by the parties came to the conclusion that the respondents had sufficient means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction, had got their plans approved by the Municipal Corporation and had an honest intention to demolish the existing structure and to reconstruct another on that site. On the question whether the building was in a dilapidated condition and required immediate demolition and reconstruction no definite finding one way or the other was given but he took the view that it was well settled that it was not always essential to prove that the building was decrepit before an application for possession could be made under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act and that the landlord had a right to demolish his property in order to build a new structure on the site with a view to improve his business or get better returns out of investments and that since in the instant case the respondents had purchased the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and had obtained the municipal sanction in that behalf and were found to be possessed of sufficient means, they satisfied the condition of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act. He, therefore, ordered the eviction of the appellant. In the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 23 of the Act, the appellate authority (2nd Judge of Small Cause Court, Madras) confirmed the view of the Rent Controller that the respondents had established their bona fide requirement under Section 14 (1) (b) and dismissed the appeal. The appellant preferred a Civil Revisional Application to the High Court specifically contending that the decision of the lower authorities on the question of bona fide requirement was wrong inasmuch as the factor whether the building itself required demolition and reconstruction or not had been regarded as irrelevant and completely ignored. The High Court dismissed the Revisional Application by observing that "the only thing to be looked into in such cases is whether the intention, to demolish the building is there and whether such an intention is for the purpose of demolishing the same with a future intention to reconstruct and whether it is a bona fide intention; all these have been found in favour of the landlord." The appellant has challenged the correctness of the view adopted by the Rent Controller, the appellate authority and the High Court before us.

(3.) It will be desirable to set out the material provisions of Section 14 of the Act.