DURGARAM Vs. SYED SAHIR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.435 of 2008 confirming the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP No.2238 of 2006, this civil revision petition is filed by the tenant.

(2.) THE epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:(i) THE respondent/landlord filed the RCOP No.2238 of 2006 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction of the demised premises concerned. THE matter was contested by the revision petitioner/tenant.(ii) On the side of the landlord, his son was examined as P.W.1 along with one Anbaran as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the tenant's side, the tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R4.(iii) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction. As against the said order the appeal was filed by the tenant for nothing but to be dismissed.

(3.) BY way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would develop his argument, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:(i) Both the Courts below adhering to the proper provisions of law ordered eviction.(ii) The age of the building is not at all germane for ordering eviction under Section 14 of the Act.(iii) A landlord has got the right to demolish even a building which is not in dilapidated condition, so as to put his own property into much better beneficial use and the tenant cannot dictate terms.(iv) While deposing before the Court, P.W.1-the landlord's son clearly detailed and delineated, expressed and expounded that in fact the purpose of demolition and reconstruction is only for the purpose of accommodating him to do his business. (v) It is a settled proposition of law that the landlord is not expected to jingle the coins before the Court to prove his financial capacity. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would pray for dismissal of the revision petition and for confirming the orders of both the Courts below.