J RAMAMURTHY Vs. ENDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition, preferred by the landlord in rent control proceedings, is directed against a common judgment of the Appellate authority in R. C. A. No. 404, etc. of 1987, dated 17. 8. 1989.

(2.) THE petitioner filed R. C. O. P. No. 5140 of 1983 under sec. l4 (l) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') against 12 tenants occupying different portions of the premises belonging to the landlord. When that R. C. O. P. was allowed in favour of the landlord, the tenants preferred different individual R. C. As. to the Appellate Authority. Hence there were number of Appeals before the Appellate Authority. Further, in addition to the petition under Sec. 14 (l) (b) of the Act, the landlord also filed additional eviction petitions against some of the tenants under other provisions. But here we are not concerned with those. We are concerned now only with the case relating to eviction petition filed under Sec. 14 (l) (b) of the Act.

(3.) MR. K. Sarvabhauman, learned Senior Counsel , appearing for the petitioner/landlord, took me through the order of the Rent Controller and the common judgment of the Appellate Authority. According to the learned senior Counsel, the judgment of the Appellate Authority dismissing the eviction petition is unsustainable both on facts and on law. According to him, the appellate Authority, having found that the building is in a bad condition, erred in dismissing the eviction petition on the ground that the claim was no bona fide and the petition for eviction was barred under Sec. 19 of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the reasons given by the Appellate authority for reaching the above two conclusions are totally unsustainable. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the principle of res judicata or the bar under Sec. 19 of the Act cannot be pressed into service to the facts of this case. Because, the previous eviction petition, namely R. C. O. P. No. 479 of 1972, filed under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act was dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the eviction petition was not maintainable under Sec. 14 (l) (b) of the Act at the instance of a life-estate holder. Having held so, the Rent controller ought not to have gone into the other issue, namely, whether the claim was bona fide or not. According to the learned counsel, any findings given on merits after having found that the petition was not maintainable will not be of any consequence and cannot stand in the way of the landlord filing a fresh eviction petition. No doubt, the order of the Rent Controller was confirmed on appeal by the Appellate Authority and further by this Court is revision. It is only after the Supreme Court has declared the law in S. M. Gopala krishna Chetty v. Ganeshan,a. l. R. 1975 S. C. 1750, holding the life-estate holder can also file eviction petition under Sec. l4 (l) (b) of the Act, the petitioner has filed the present petition for eviction under Sec. l4 (l) (b) of the Act and, therefore, the judgment of the Appellate Authority holding that the decision given in the earlier eviction petition regarding bona fides will operate as res judicata is not sustainable. In support of that, he cited the following decisions: Shankaralal Patwari v. Hiralal Murarka and others, A. I. R. 1950 P. C. 80, M. Govindarajulu v. M. Jayaraman, (1976)1 M. L. J. 406 and M/s. Associated traders v. T. M. A. Abdul Hameed, (1983)2 M. L. J. 583. He also submitted that apart from holding that the finding regarding bona fides rendered in the earlier eviction petition will operate as res judicata, the Appellate Authority, in the present case, has found that the sanction for demolition and reconstruction was obtained subsequent to the filing of the R. C. O. P. and therefore the claim was not bona fide. This reasoning is not against sustainable in view of several decisions of this Court, namely S. Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan, 94 L. W. 102, b. Paras Devi v. M/s. Vijaya Auto Parts by its Proprietor M. Gulapchand, Madras, 100 L. W. 319 and K. A. Vadivelu v. R. Govindarajulu, (1992)1 L. W. 190. Finally, he brought to my notice certain subsequent events which will have some relevance to decide the issue regarding the condition of the building in this case. It is stated that some of the tenants have filed R. C. O. Ps. for direction to the landlord to carry out repairs to the respective portions in their occupation. In that proceedings, the Court seems to have appointed a civil engineer as Commissioner and has filed a report which would show that presently the building is in a dangerous condition and it is likely to crumble at any time, and repairs cannot be carried out and the only solution is demolition. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a notice issued by the Corporation on 27. 6. 1986 under Sec. 258 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1991 bringing to the notice of the landlord about the dangerous condition of the building and calling upon him to take necessary steps to prevent the danger. In support of his contention that the subsequent events can be relied upon, learned counsel placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, Ml s. Variety Emporium v. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim, A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 207 and5 Gulabbai v. Nalim Nersi Yohra and others, (1991)3 S. C. C. 483.