K.S. ABDULLAH Vs. S. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS all the above three revisions are connected they are dealt with together. The respondent, who is the same in all the three revisions, filed three petitions for eviction of the petitioner, who is also the same in all the revisions, from three different portions of premises No. 1, Smith Road, Mount Road, Madras -2 on the grounds (1) that he bona fide required the premises for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction and (2) that the petitioner had denied the title of the landlord and that such denial was not bona fide. The tenant -petitioner resisted all the eviction petitions and stated that he is entitled to the benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act, in respect of a portion of the premises wherein he had put up superstructure, that the request of the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction was not bona fide and that there has been no valid notice terminating the tenancy in his favour. He also alleged that the premises from which he is sought to be evicted has been constructed after 1960 and therefore, the landlord cannot seek eviction under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller, however, overruled the objections of the petitioner and ordered eviction. There was an appeal to the appellate authority constituted under the Act and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller has been affirmed therein. The appellate authority also agreed with the Rent Controller that the requirement of the premises by the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction had been established and that concurrent finding has not been canvassed before me and the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that he is not questioning that finding. On the question whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefits under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, in respect of that portion of the land over which he had put up the superstructure, the appellate authority also agreed with the Rent Controller that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits under that Act, and this finding also has not been challenged in these revisions. On the questions whether there has been a valid notice determining the tenancy in favour of the petitioner and whether the premises is one constructed after 1960 so as to exclude the application of the provisions of Madras Act (XVIII of 1960) the view of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority was that there has been a valid notice determining the tenancy and that the premises came within the purview of the Act. This alone is challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE question whether the premises was constructed after 1960 can easily be disposed of. It was the case of the petitioner that there was a complete reconstruction of the premises in 1961 after he took the premises on lease under Exhibit P -8, dated 24th August, 1959, and that as such the building will get exempted from the provisions of Madras Act (XVIII of 1960). But a perusal of the lease deed Exhibit P -8 shows that the premises let out was a storeyed Madras terraced Building together with zinc shed on its back eastern side and a vacant plot on its northern side. Clause 7 of the lease deed permitted the lessee to put up pucca superstructures on the northern front portion and the eastern back portion of the existing terraced superstructure at a cost of Rs. 3,000 and to adjust the same at the rate of Rs. 40 per month from the monthly rentals of Rs. 100 fixed under the lease deed. The petitioner in his evidence as R.W. 1 had stated that, in 1961 the terrace was constructed in front side and zinc shed was put up on the back side and a terraced portion was put up further back. From the terms of the lease deed and the evidence of the petitioner it is clear that the constructions after 1960 were only additional constructions to the existing building which was taken on lease. Hence it is not possible to hold that the entirety of the building leased out to the petitioner under Exhibit P -8 is a new building constructed after 1960 so as to exclude it from the provisions of Madras Act (XVIII of 1960).

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel the contractual tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent though originally put an end to by the notice, dated 13th May, 1967, has been revived by the respondent's waiver of the notice by issuing a second notice on 2nd June, 1967, and by receiving the rents due subsequent to 13th May, 1967, the date of the original termination notice. The learned Counsel refers to Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act and the illustrations given thereunder. Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act and the illustrations are set out hereunder: