LAWS(MAD)-2000-4-66

S P KASI VISWANATHAN CHETTIAR Vs. S KALYANARAMAN

Decided On April 28, 2000
S.P. KASI VISWANATHAN CHETTIAR Appellant
V/S
S. KALYANARAMAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Sub Court, Thanjavur, in R.C.A.No.40 of 1993, reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller, Thiruvaiyar, in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 1991.

(2.) THE landowner sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement and for demolition and reconstruction. THE tenant is the revision petitioner. In the eviction petition, the respondent herein, contended that he is the owner of the petition premises having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 12.12.1990. THE tenant is aware of the purchase and has paid rent up to the end of May, 1991. THE building was constructed more than 80 years ago and as the building was not properly maintained, it has become very dilapidated with several big cracks on the ceiling as well as the side walls. THE condition of the building was very dangerous and likely to cause damage to the occupant and also resulting in loss to the landowner. THErefore, the tenant has to vacate the premises to enable him to demolish the building and for reconstruction. He also undertook to commence the work within a period of three months after the premises was vacated. In fact, the other tenants who were occupying the portion on the southern side of the same building having appreciated the requirement of the landowner, had vacated their respective portions. But the tenant was refusing to oblige in spite of several personal and oral request. Hence, a legal notice was sent on 14.6.1991 for which a reply was sent by the tenant contending false allegations. THE landowner further contended that he was residing with his parents, unmarried brothers and sisters and also an uncle who was a bachelor. THEy were all residing at Door No.9, North Madavilagam, Thiruvaiyar Town, comprising 12 members. On the rear side of the same house, there was a tenant who has been in occupation for a very long time. THE younger brother of the landowner was a student of Indian Medicines and after completion of the course, he has to be married and he would require the premises for his personal requirement and for a clinic. Hence the petition building was required for personal occupation of the landowner and for demolition and reconstruction. Hence, the petition was filed under Section 14(1)(b) and Section 10(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960.

(3.) FURTHER reliance is placed on the judgment of R. Balasubramanian, J. in Srinivasan v. Thangaraju , 1999 (2) MLJ 337. In that case also having regard to the facts of the case and the evidence let in by the parties, the learned Judge had held that the condition of the building had not been properly established.