R PAPPATHIAMMAL Vs. NACHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 12 in this revision filed R.C.O.P.N0.43 of 1989 against the revision petitioners seeking their eviction under section 14(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. On merits that petition came to be dismissed. The landlords appealed in R.C.A.No.6 of 1995 before the appellate authority Erode, who allowed that appeal on merits resulting in the eviction of the petitioners in this revision having come to be passed under section 14(1)(b) of the said Act. It is the correctness of the said order that is being challenged in this revision before this Court. Heard Mr.S.V.Jayaraman learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as Mr.R.Sekar learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 12 in this revision.

(2.) THE learned senior counsel mainly contended that the landlords have not established that the building in question is required for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction, though they have pleaded so in the petition. In the absence of proof that the building is required for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction, the appellate authority had completely erred in law and on facts in ordering eviction. THE learned senior counsel also contended that, even assuming for a moment without admitting that the landlords have established the condition of the building warranting an order of eviction, yet that alone would not be sufficient, in the absence of the landlords establishing their bona fides in regard thereto. THE learned Rent Controller, while dismissing the eviction petition, not only found that the condition of the building had not been established, but also found that the bona fides of the landlords is also not established. However the appellate authority, while ordering eviction, had not adverted to the bona fide needs of the landlords in this case and consequently there is no finding on that aspect. THE only pleading is that the landlords wanted to demolish the non-residential building and to put up a residential building. It has come out in evidence that the landlords own a number of residential buildings; they are in occupation of their own residential building and this aspect had been taken into account by the Rent Controller to find against the landlords on the question of bona fides. All the above mentioned aspects have escaped the attention of the appellate authority and therefore the order of the appellate authority suffers from illegality on that aspect as well. In other words, the sum and substance of the argument of the learned senior counsel is that, the landlords have neither established the condition of the building warranting an order of eviction, nor have established their bona fides and therefore they are not entitled to any order of eviction at all on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) IT is clear from the decided cases that this Court exercising jurisdiction under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act cannot re-appreciate the evidence and record a finding contrary to those of the lower courts, if the finding arrived at by the courts below is supported by materials. Therefore to succeed, the landlords must establish the following facts namely, the condition and age of the building; bona fide intention of the landlord and his solvency. As far as solvency of the landlords is concerned, though a vague stand is taken in the counter that the landlords are not solvent enough, yet from the very suggestion made on behalf of the defence to P.W.1 when he was in the witness box, it is seen that the landlords own a number of buildings in Erode and many of them have been let out. Erode Town is buzzling with commercial activities and there is a great demand for property and vacant place. In view of the importance or Erode Town, the very tact that the landlords are owning a number of buildings, many of which have been let out to tenants, would by itself mean that the landlords can generate funds to meet the expenses to be incurred for the purpose of reconstruction. In fact the appellate Judge had found on this point in favour of the landlords and he had taken the evidence of the tenants into account, where they do not even say that the landlords are not possessed of means. The landlords, besides their oral evidence let in through P.W.l, have also, by producing Exs.P.l and P.2, had established that the plan for the proposed construction had been sanctioned, the validity of which stood extended till July, 1992. Therefore it is clear that the landlords have taken steps. IT is common knowledge that the fee payable for the building plan is on the high side. IT has been held by this Court in a number of judgments that, in view of the prohibitive fees which every intending builder has to pay for getting the sanctioned plan; to insist for the same and keeping it alive till the disposal of the eviction proceedings, would amount to burdening the landlord very heavily in terms of money and therefore it has been held in those cases that the production of the sanctioned plan is not a condition precedent before ever an order of eviction could be passed. Under these circumstances, I am in entire agreement with the appellate authority that the landlords had established their capacity to meet the expenses regarding the proposed construction as well as had taken necessary steps towards the same.