HUSSAIN LORRY BOOKING SERVICE COIMBATORE Vs. A SIRAJUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in R.C.O.P. No. 93 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Coimbatore are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application for eviction against the respondents under Ss.14(i)(b) and 14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 93 of 1983 is as follows :

(3.) The respondents resisted the application for eviction contending as follows; The respondents are the owners of the superstructure described in the petition and the petitioner is only the owner of the vacant site and that the first respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act. As there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title to the superstructure, the application for eviction filed before the Rent Controller under the provisions of the Act is not maintainable. The petition mentioned vacant site was leased out by the petitioner's predecessor-in-title in the year 1955 to one Arunchalam Pillai and one Kasim Sahib, who are the predecessors-in-title of the first respondent-firm having put up superstructure therein are in continuous possession as tenants of the demised vacant site and as owners of the superstructure. The building in question is in good condition and it does not require immediate demolition for reconstruction and the petitioner's requirement for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide.