S A AHAMED Vs. ALAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revision petitions are preferred by one S. A. Ahamed, the landlord in R. C. O. P. No. 35 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Periakulam. He filed a single petition seeking the eviction of all the respondents in these three revisions, under sections 10 (3) (a) (iii) and 14 (1) (6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the grounds that the building is required for carrying on his business and that the same is bona fide required for demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller found both the grounds in favour of the landlord and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the said order of the Rent Controller, the three tenants filed three independent appeals which were numbered as C. M. A. Nos. 138, 140 and 142 of 1979 before the appellate authority (Principal, Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, who rendered a common judgment allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller for the reasons set out in the said judgment, holding that the building is required neither for immediate demolition and reconstruction nor for the purpose of carrying on the landlord.s own business. Hence these revision petitions by the landlord.

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the contentions raised by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the revision petitioner in this batch of revisions, I would like to point out certain facts on the basis of which the order of eviction has been sought. The demised property is a single house situate in Periakulam Town abutting Kamaraj Road and facing south. The front portion of the building is divided into two parts with a passage in between. Adjoining these two parts, there is a hall on the northern side. The Commissioner in his plan Exhibit-2 has indicated the two parts in the front portion of the building as .A .and .C. and the back portion as .B.. The parts marked as .A. and .C are given Door Nos. 70 and 70/2 and the portion .B .Door No. 70/1. .A. is in the occupation of the respondent in C. R. P. No. 1240 of 1981 who is having jewellery mart .C is in the occupation of the respondent in C. R. P. No. 1238 of 1981 who is running a barber.s saloon and .B. is in the occupation of the respondent in,C. R. P. 1239 of 1981, who is having a photo studio. The case of the revision-petitioner is that in August, 1977, he informed the respondents both in person and through his agent to vacate the premises as he wanted to demolish the building and reconstruct it for a purpose of his own viz., for carrying on his business under the name and style of .Ravi Automobiles Spare Parts. On the promise given by the respondents to vacate the premises, the petitioner applied for and obtained from the Municipality the approved plan Exhibit A-l and also the necessary permission under Exhibit A-2. But, subsequently the respondents refused to vacate the building and therefore the landlord issued a notice under the original of Exhibit A-3 dated 22nd October, 1977, calling upon the respondents 2 and 3 to vacate, who sent two replies under Exhibits A-5 and A-6 respectively. Hence, he filed the abovesaid eviction petition.

(3.) MR. M.V. Krishnan, appearing for the respondent in C. R. P. No. 1239 of 1981, would submit that the decision in Pattabhiraman.s case1, cannot be mads applicable to the facts of the present case. According to him, in Pattabhiramans case1, the facts were entirely different, in that there was a sanctioned plan not only for the removal of the walls in the upstairs of the demised building therein but also for effecting a complete change of the roof from a tiled one into a Madras terrace, whereas in the present case the removal of the two walls forming the passage and the putting up of the steel beams will not in any way make any substantial structural alteration so as to change the identity and to give a new look altogether, even if the cubical content of the front portion is increased. The Divisional Bench of this Court in Krishnan v. Munusamy2, while approving the decision of Ramaprasada Rao, J. (as he then was), in Pattabhiraman.s Case1, having regard to the facts therein, has stated as follows: , "All that we wish to say on this aspect of the matter regarding the decision in Pattabhiraman v. Accomodation Controller1, is that there appears to be somewhat an over-emphasis on the change of the roof by using the expression .above all. in one place and .more than anything else. in another place. But, as we said, we may repeat with respect that on the facts found by the learned Judge and by the authorities, there was demolition and construction of a new building, because the building let was only a particular floor where vast changes had to be made which completely destroyed the old structure on the first floor and brought into being an entirely new building. So section 14 (1) (b) was clearly applicable".