VADAMADURAIPANDIAN Vs. N SUSILA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 1.4.99 made in RCA No. 77 of 1997 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Madurai confirmed in the order dated 18.9.97 made in RCOP No. 70 of 1988 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town. The petitioner in this civil revision petition is the tenant in RCOP No. 70 of 1988.

(2.) THE respondent/landlord filed a petition under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground that she is the owner of the premises at Door No. 23, Munichalai Road. Madurai Town. It is stated in the petition that the building was leased to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300 payable on or before the 5th of every succeeding months. THE building is more than 60 years old. THE landlord purchased the building in the year 1981. THE building is in dilapidated condition and therefore immediate demolition is necessary. It is further stated that the landlord has sufficient means and the landlord also undertakes to demolish the building within a period of one month of handing over vacant possession and the new building will be constructed within a period of three months thereafter. It is also stated that the landlord in the letter dated 28.11.87 requested the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and also to vacate the premises before 31.12.87. It is further stated that the tenant neither paid the said arrears of rent nor vacated the premises on 31.12.87. THErefore the landlord is compelled to file the application under Section 14(1)(b) of the said Act.

(3.) IN support of the above submissions the learned counsel drew my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, 1996 (II) CTC 586:1997 (1) L.W. 218 IN that case the Apex Court was considering the scope of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act and finally held as follows in paragraph 13:- "On reading S.14(1)(b) along with S.16 it can be said that for eviction of a tenant on the ground of demolition of the building for erecting a new building, the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human habitation. If that was the requirement there is no occasion to put a condition to demolish within a specified time, and to erect a new building on the same site. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 contemplates that permission has been granted by the Sent Controller under S.14(1)(b) for demoliti on of the building, but if such demolition is not carried out in terms of the order and undertaking, then Rent Controller can order the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions. If the building is dangerous and dilapidated requiring immediate demolition for safety, then there is no question of Rent Controller directing landlord to put the tenant in possession of such building on the original terms and conditions, on account of the failure of the landlord to commence the demolition within the period prescribed. Similarly, there was no occasion to link the demolition of such building with erection of new building and then to give the landlord freedom from the restrictive provisions of the Act for a period of five years from the date on which the construction of such new building is completed and notified to the local authorities concerned. IN this background, it has to be held that neither of the extreme position taken by the respondent or the appellants can be accepted. Permission under S.14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller on mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately demolish the building in question to erect a new building. At the same time it is difficult to accept the stand of the appellants that the building must be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human habitation. For granting permission under S.14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bonafide or not. 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 S.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."