SREENIVASAN CHETTIAR Vs. R M KALYANI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point debated in this civil revision petition at the instance of the tenant who figures as the petitioner herein is, whether the Appellate Authority functioning under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed there under has powers to grant permission to raise additional grounds in a Pending appeal. The respondent herein filed an application in R. C. 0. P. No. 655 of 1977 against the petitioner under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground that she required the building in the occupation of the Petitioner for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The building, according to the respondent is an old one and consists of several tenements. Claiming that she had the means to out up the construction and had also submitted a plan for the Proposed building and that she required the building in the occupation of the petitioner for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a new and a modem building in accordance with the plan submitted, the respondent prayed for an order of eviction against the Petitioner giving an undertaking that the entire building will be demolished within three months from the date on which possession is taken.

(2.) That application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that since the building consists of several tenements some of which had already been sold to the tenants in occupation. it is not possible to demolish building and to construct a new building in the site. It was also the further case of the petitioner that the respondent negotiated for the sale of the respective tenements to the tenants including the petitioner and since the respondent wanted a very high price and the petitioner was unable to pay that amount , there was a demand for Payment of higher rent which was not agreed to by the Petitioner and hence the petitioner claimed that the application for eviction was filed with the oblique motive of securing an order for eviction against the Petitioner. The petitioner further set up an agreement dated 9-4-1976, entered into between himself and the re6pondent by which he claimed that he had agreed to purchase the portion in his occupation wherein he is carrying on business and had also paid an advance of Rs. 3000. The building was also stated by the petitioner to be a strong one which does not require immediate demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller (District Munsif) Madurai town, held on a consideration of the evidence of the Kariasthar of the respondent examined as P. W. 1, the , submission of the plan and the undisputed means of the respondent and other circumstances, that the respondent bona fide required the premises in the occupation of the Petitioner for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. On this conclusion, an order for eviction was passed against the petitioner granting him two months time to vacate the Premises. Aggrieved by this the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Madurai, under Section 23 of the Act. In the Memorandum of appeal. the petitioner had set out the grounds of attack against the order of -the Rent Controller. Realising that the plea that the sale agreement between the Petitioner and the respondent had brought about a change in the jural relationship of landlord and tenant which existed before and that therefore the respondent is not entitled to file an application for eviction, had not been specifically Put forth, the Petitioner filed an. interlocutory application supporting to be under Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1974. Praying to receive certain additional grounds of appeal in this regard filed by the, the petitioner. The Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Madur4 by its order dated 11-6-1979, held that there is no provision in the Act to receive additional grounds in an appeal and that Rule 16 (2) brought to its notice by the petitioner has no application whatever to this case and consequently, rejected the Petition filed by the petitioner. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision.