PEERAMMAL BEEVI Vs. V CHINNASAMY NICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of appellate authority under Rent Control Act, Court of Small Causes, Madras in RCA No.282 of 1994 in reversing that of the Rent Control Act in RCOP No.2650 of 1991. The landlord is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The petition was filed under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The revision petitioner claims to be the landlady of the premises. The said property was let on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- and for a further sum of Rs.100/- towards amenities for non-residential purpose. The tenant was also liable to pay monthly electricity consumption charges separately. The tenant was using the petitioner-premises as a godown for storing plantain for his business. Originally, the father-in-law of the respondent was the tenant in the year 1976. Pursuant to rental agreement dated 29.4.1996, the tenancy was subsequently renewed. The respondent became the tenant after his father-in-law died. The landlady further contended that the petitioner-premises was an old building and was in a very bad and dilapidated condition. As a matter of fact, the premises consists of a front wall with a door and a wall in the rear portion and it has no side walls and the same consists of a roof. The roof is in a very bad stage and damaged condition. The premises therefore requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The landlord also seeks to make use of the premises for more profitable use and therefore requires for bona fide reasons to demolish and reconstruct. The petitioner also has taken steps to obtain sanction of plans and she has sufficient means for the proposed reconstruction. By notice dated 13.9.1991, the petitioner called upon the respondent to surrender possession, which was however evaded by the tenant. The copy of the said notice was also sent under Certificate of Posting and there is no reply from the tenant.

(3.) In the counter affidavit by the respondent-tenant, it is stated that the premises does not require any immediate demolition and the petition-premises is used as a godown and the same does not have any roof. The premises were in the same condition as it was leased out to the father-in-law of the respondent. The petitioner has no intention of demolishing or reconstructing the premises and she plans only to sell the property for the huge price and number of brokers were visiting the property with prospective purchasers. The claim was therefore not bona fide.