LAWS(MAD)-1992-2-26

K A VADIVELU Vs. R GOVINDARAJALU

Decided On February 17, 1992
K.A.VADIVELU Appellant
V/S
R.GOVINDARAJALU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant of a non-residential building who was unsuccessful before the Rent Controller as well before the appellate Authority, has preferred this civil revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of both the authorities that he is liable to be evicted from the premises in question. THE respondent sought eviction mainly on two grounds viz. , wilful default and bona fide requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction. Acts of waste were also mentioned in passing. THE case of the petitioner before the Rent Controller was that there was no wilful default and further the building was not in a dilapidated condition needing demolition and reconstruction. On the other hand it was the case of the petitioner that the building was in a sound condition.

(2.) LEARNED Rent Controller held that the petitioner was liable to be evicted on both grounds namely, wilful default and bona fide requirement of the landlord of the building for demolition and reconstruction. However, on appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the rent Controller so far as it concerned'wilful default', but concurred with the finding regarding the bona fide requirement of the building, by the landlord, for demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) THE decision of G. Ramanujam, J. in G. K. Jose and others v. Ramathal, (1979)1 M. L. J. 372: 92 L. W. 315, was also cited: THE learned Judge has observed as follows :'the Court could not make out how the obtaining of a plan subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition would show that the requirement of the premises by the landlady for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction was not bona fide. On the finding of the Appellate Authority which was based on the materials on record it was not possible to say that the requirement of the respondent (landlady) was not bona fide at all. THE Court accepted the findings of the authorities below that the landlady required the premises bona fide for demolition and reconstruction.'