S A HENRY Vs. J V K RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner in the revision petition. The respondent-landlord is the owner of premises No. 9 Ritherdon Road, Vepery. He had leased the first floor to one tenant and the ground floor to the petitioner. The respondent had planned to remodel the entire house at huge cost and also obtained the requisite sanction from the corporation for remodelling, reconstruction, repairs etc. The respondent required both the tenants to vacate and hand over possession for carrying out his work. The tenant in the first floor complied with his request and the landlord carried out in the first floor the work of remodelling involving demolition, reconstruction, repairs etc. After this was over, the landlord against pressed and requested the petitioner to vacate and hand over the ground floor so that the work may be completed. Correspondence passed between the parties and as the tenant declined to vacate, the landlord filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (b) of the madras Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act of 1969 hereinafter referred to as the Act for obtaining possession of the premises on the ground that the landlord required the same for demolition and reconstruction.

(2.) THE Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that this was not a case of demolition and reconstruction, but was only a case of repairs coming under section 14 (1) (a) of the Act.

(3.) THE landlord took up the matter to the appellate authority who reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and held that the nature of the work planned by the landlord was substantially demolition and reconstruction and that he was entitled to possession under Section 14 (1) (b ). Hence the tenant has preferred this revision petition.