O R SESHADRI Vs. B SUNDARSANA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions at the instance of the tenants in occupation of 1porlions of door No. 12, subramania Mudali St., Madras 1, belonging to the respondent herein, are directed against the orders of eviction passed by the authorities below against the petitioners on applications filed by the respondent herein under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and RentControl) Act, 18,of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the case of the respondent, he is residing in a rented premises at door No. 10, Subramania. Mudali St., Madras 1, and carrying on business at door No. 15, Ramakrishna Street, Madras 1, and door No. 46 An person St., Madras 1, which are also rented premises and that in March 1978, he purchased the property in the occupation of the petitioners and others for the purpose of his own use and occupation after reconstructing the same to suit his needs. The further case of the respondent was that the building is an old and dilapidated 19th century construction and that he was desirous of demolishing it and putting up a new pucca building. The respondent also claimed that he had sufficient means to undertake the process of demolition and reconstruction and that he had also applied for the sanctioned plan and other requirements. Claiming that he the building in the occupation of the petitioners for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction and giving an undertaking as contemplated by the provisions of the Act, the respondent filed applications for eviction against the petitioners under S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. An additional ground of willful default in the payment 6f rents was also put forth by the respondent against the petitioners in C.'R. P. Nos. 1001 and 1013 of 1981.

(2.) The petitioners resisted these applications contending that the respondent had no,intention of either demolishing or reconstructing the building and that the respondent had also not secured the necessary plans and estimates in that regard. The claim of the respondent that' he had sufficient resources to undertake the process of demolition and reconstruction was disputed by the petitioners. The condition of the building, according to the petitioners, was good and that the building did not require demolition and, therefore, the requirement of the respondent under S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act was not bona fide.

(3.) Since all the applications for eviction related to the same building and the landlord was one and the same and common questions had to be decided, all the applications for eviction were heard together. Before the Rent Controller (IX Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, the respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and another as P. W. 2, and relied upon Exs. P. 1 to P. 45 while on behalf of the petitioners, R. Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. R. I to R. 15, were marked. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the respondent bad not established that the petitioners in C. R. Ps. 1001 and 1013 of 1981 committed willful default in the payment of rents. As regards. the requirement of the respondent for demolition and reconstruction, the Rent Controller was satisfied that the respondent had sufficient means and that the condition of the building was also such as to deserve demolition and that the respondent bona fide required the premises for demolition and reconstruction. On these con, collusions, the applications for eviction were ordered. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners preferred H. R. A. Nos. 2141, 2142, 2138, 2125 and 2126 of 1979 to the Appellate Authority (IV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. By an order dated 12-8-1980, the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, withdrew these appeals to his file and proceeded to dispose them of. On an exhaustive reconsideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Appellate Authority (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras found that the age as well as the existing condition of the building required that the building should be demolished, that the respondent had also established his means for undertaking the process of demolition and reconstruction and had also taken steps in that regard and that the requirement of the respondent was also bona fide. It was also further pointed Out by the Appellate Authority that the respondent had already taken possession of a portion vacated by another tenant and had demolished that also and that would further establish the bona fide requirement of the respondent. On these conclusions, the order for eviction was upheld and the appeals were dismissed. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in these civil revision petitions: