SYED MEHDI ISPAHANI Vs. SHAKEEL UR-REHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord of a building in the city of Madras is the revision petitioner. THE respondent in this revision is the tenant. THE landlord's petition for evicting the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction was dismissed on merits. An appeal filed by the landlord in R.C.A. No. 167 of 1994 was also dismissed on merits by the Appellants Authority. Hence the present revision before this Court.

(2.) HEARD Mr. T. R. Rajagopalan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the landlord and Mr.P.H. Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant.

(3.) IN Vijay Singh's case , 1996 (II) CTC 586 (SC):1996 (6) SCC 475 the Honourable Supreme Court of INdia, after adverting to the requirement of the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, which case arose under the very same Act, held as follows:- 'For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account: (1) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants (2) the age and condition of the building (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b). No Court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller.'These are stated to be some of the illustrative factors.