T THIRUPPATHI Vs. MAIMOON BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of the order of the appellate authority and the Subordinate Judge of Madurai passed in C. M. A. 238 of 1976, dismissing the claim of the landlord, the civil revision petitioner, for eviction of the premises bearing door No. 232 East Masi St. Madurai Town, on the ground~ that the landlord required the same for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction under S. 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. Originally the landlord filed R. C. 0. P. 569 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif and the Rent Controller, Madurai Town, for eviction of the tenants, the respondents herein, on the ground that the landlord required the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and also on the other ground that the tenants had caused damages to the building. The learned Rent Controller after enquiry held that the landlord had not proved the second ground, viz, the tenants had caused damages to the above said building. But as regards the first ground the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord required the above said premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. In view of the finding that the landlord required the premises for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenants by granting a months' time to vacate the premises. As against the order of the Rent Controller, the tenants filed an appeal in C. M. A. No. 238 of 1976 on the file of the appellate authority and the Subordinate Judge of Madurai and the learned appellate authority after considering the evidence on record dismissed the appeal and confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. As against the said order of the appellate authority the tenants filed a , revision petition to this Court in C. R. P. 241 of 1976 and this Court after considering the material on record allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the appellate authority directing the appellate authority to dispose of' the appeal in the light of the decision reported in K. Krishnan v. Munusami. After remand the appellate authority considered the matter afresh in the light of the above said decision and came to the conclusion that what the civil revision petitioner, the landlord, proposed to do cannot amount to demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new building within the meaning of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act and allowed the appeal and dismissed the rent control petition. As against the said order of the appellate -authority this civil revision petition has been filed.

(2.) An interesting question of law arises in this civil revision petition, viz., as to what is the meaning to be given to the terms 'demolition' and 'erecting a new building' occurring in S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. S. 14 (1) (b) reads as follows-

(3.) "Demolition" is not defined in the Act. The effect of the words 'demolition' and 'erection of a new building' occurring in S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act had been considered in several decisions of this Court. A single Judge of this Court in the case reported in Ramachandran v. Kasirn Khaleeli (1965) 1 Mad LJ 78, observed as follows-