RAJAGOPAL VANDAIYAR AND SONS Vs. JOSEPH NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents is R. C. O. P. No. 51 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Mayiladuthurai are 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 as per the nomenclature given to them in the R. C. O. P.

(2.) The petitioner filed R. C. O. P. No. 51 of 1981 against the respondent for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act VII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows : The petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned property consisting of three shops with vacant site situated in Road No. II, Cusba Mayavaram. One Thirunavukkarasu was a tenant of the property under the petitioner and he was having a service station in the petition mentioned premises. The said Thirunavukkarasu had put up some asbestos sheet sheds and compound walls for the purpose of his business. The respondents purchased the business and the asbestos sheet sheds etc., for continuing to do the same business from the said Thirunavukkarasu. The respondents also entered into a tenancy agreement with the petitioner on 25-11-1976 and executed a registered rent deed on that date. As per the rent deed dated 25-11-1976 the respondents agreed to remove at his cost the asbestos sheet sheds and compound walls put up by Thirunavukkarasu at the end of the tenancy. The shop buildings in the petition mentioned property have become old and they have to be demolished for reconstructing a fresh building on the site after demolishing the shops. The petitioner has applied for licence to the municipality for putting up a building in the petition mentioned property after demolishing the existing shops.

(3.) The respondents resisted the application contending as follows:- The lease in favour of the respondents is a composite one and, therefore, the provisions of the Act will not apply to the transaction and the petition for eviction filed before the Rent Controller is not maintainable. The premises was originally given on long lease to one Sri G. Nataraja Iyer in or about 1956 for the purpose of running an automobile business and service station in the petition mentioned property. At that time there were only three small shops occupying an extent of about 350 s. ft. The original tenant Nataraja Iyer put up for the purpose of his business ramps, temporary structures etc., on the vacant sites of the petition mentioned property. Subsequently the said Nataraja Iyer assigned his lease and also the business in favour of the Thirunavukkarasu in 1966. The said Thirunavukkarasu put up pucca asbestos sheet sheds and a compound wall for the purpose of his business. Thereafter the said Tirunavukkarasu sold his business and the asbestos sheet sheds put up by him in the petition mentioned property to the respondents on 25-11-1976. On the same day the respondents have entered into a tenancy agreement with the petitioner in respect of the petition mentioned property. The application filed by the petitioner for eviction on the ground that the petitioner's requirement of the petition mentioned building for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide as the shop buildings concerned in the lease are in good condition and they do not require demolition for reconstruction.