LAWS(MAD)-1972-9-3

K SHANMUGHA APPAH Vs. S S ABDUL HAMEED

Decided On September 18, 1972
K.SHANMUGHA APPAH Appellant
V/S
S.S.ABDUL HAMEED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord applied for eviction on the ground that the premises was required for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The Trial Court held that the petitioner before the Rent Controller is not competent to maintain the petition as he is one of the joint co-owners and dismissed, it. On appeal, the appellate court held that the petition is maintainable and ordered a remand to the Rent Controller for disposal, on merits. This petition is filed by the tenant against the said order of remand.

(2.) THE father of the respondent herein had settled the house property on the respondent herein and his three brothers, by means of a settlement deed dated 14-7-1966. The respondent was named as the manager. The father also directed the tenant to pay the rent to the eldest of the four sons, namely, the respondent herein, who was in management of the property. In the petition it was also alleged that the building is old and in a dilapidate condition and portions of the roofing are in such a bad state that they are likely to fall down any time and is thus a danger to the safety of the occupants. The landlord further stated that he required the building to pull it down and put up a new structure on new and modern lines to make the building more useful and profitable to the respondent herein and his brothers on whom the property had been settled. In the counter statement, the tenant raised the objection that the petition is not maintainable, as on his own showing, the petitioner before the Rent Controller was only a co-owner along with his three other brothers. He did not controvert the statement of the landlord that the demolition and reconstruction was for the benefit of himself and his brothers. It is also not in dispute that the tenant attorned the tenancy to the petitioner before the Rent Controller (landlord) and was paying rent to him. On the facts, the question arises whether the petitioner before the Rent Controller could maintain the application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of requirement for himself and his brothers for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) THE definition of the word 'landlord' in Section 2 (6) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 may be extracted-