RAMASAMY Vs. FATHIMA BIVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings arise under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1960. The tenant is the first petitioner. The landlord sought for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) and denial of title under Section 10(2)(vii) of the said Act.

(2.) According to the landlord, the first petitioner herein became a tenant under her predecessors-in-interest, Hussan Mohamed and Noor Mohamed on 06.11.1971 on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-. It is claimed that the brothers executed a settlement deed in her favour on 03.06.1981. It is also claimed that the rent was subsequently increased to Rs.300/- per month. It is the further case of the landlord that there are four other buildings near the petition premises and suits and eviction petitions have been filed against the tenants, who are in possession of those portions, since the landlord requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction. The undertaking as required under Section 14(1) (b) of the Act was also given by the landlord to commence the demolition within a period of one month and complete the construction within a period of three months from the date of recovery of possession. The landlord would contend that the tenant is guilty of denying the title of the landlord, since the tenant has claimed that the tenancy is not in respect of the building, but, it is only in respect of the land. Therefore, the denial of title of the landlord was also made a ground for eviction.

(3.) This claim of the the landlord was resisted by the tenant contending that the landlord is not the owner of the superstructure. According to the tenant, the lease was only in respect of a vacant land and it was the tenant, who had put up the superstructure and therefore, the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act 1960, are not maintainable. The tenant would claim that he is entitled to protection under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. It is also claimed that the address of the petition premises is not No.22, Maniakara Street, but, it is D.No.94, A.R.R. Road. It is also claimed that the construction was put up by the tenant after having submitted a plan to the Kumbakonam Municipality for construction of an industrial shed. It his further case that the tenant has got electricity service connection in his name and has been running a business called, "Jeyalakshmi Engineering Works", in the said premises. The tenant also claimed that the eviction petition itself is mala fide and has been brought about, since the tenant did not agree for enhancement of rent.