P GANESAN Vs. SUBBIAH DHARMANIDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner / tenant has preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tuticorin in RCA No.60 of 1992 dated 05.07.2002 reversing the fair and decretal order of the Rent Controller, Tuticorin passed in RCOP No.72 of 1991 dated 22.04.1992.

(2.) The case in brief for disposal of the revision petition is as follows:- The first respondent / landlord filed a petition under section 10(2)((ii)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "Rent Control Act"), seeking eviction of the tenants from the property. The schedule mentioned property belongs to the 1st respondent / landlord and the revision petitioner was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.40/= payable on the 5th of every succeeding English calendar month. The building is about 60 years old and constructed of coral stones and lime. The building is in a bad condition. It is situated in the fast developing locality and other buildings adjacent and opposite side have been demolished and new buildings have come up. The Trust also decided to demolish the building and put up a new one to augment the income of the Trust. The Trust is possessed of sufficient means and resources to put up the new construction. The landlord already filed RCOP No.234 of 1982 for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and it was contested by the revision petitioner and the Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The landlord preferred RCA No.3 of 1988 and ultimately it was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Now, the present petition is also filed for eviction on the ground of requirement of building for demolition and reconstruction. During the pendency of the earlier rent control proceedings, the revision petitioner had sublet a portion of the building to the 2nd respondent, who is conducting a cycle repair shop. The landlord has not given any consent for such sub-lease. The revision petitioner also committed default in payment of monthly rent and he was irregular in payment. Hence, the petition. The revision petitioner filed a counter and stated that the building was used only for non-residential purpose. He is in possession and enjoyment of the property even from his father's time for more than 30 years. The building has been renovated and re-modelled at his own cost and it is in sound and good condition. The other allegations regarding the condition of the building as well as the demolition and reconstruction of other buildings nearby are denied. There are lot of litigation regarding the Trust property between the trustees and the members. In fact, the Trustees had filed a suit in O.S.No.184 of 1987 before Sub Court, Tuticorin. The allegation that he let out a small portion to the 2nd respondent is false. He has not sub-let any portion. The arrears of rent is also denied. The Trust has been negotiating through brokers to sell the property. The respondent is not entitled to claim any relief. The Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence as well as the documents, dismissed the rent control petition and aggrieved against the fair and decretal order, the landlord preferred R.C.A.No.60 of 1992 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tuticorin and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller and allowed the rent control petition on the ground of demolition and reconstruction alone.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.