M M MOHAMED ALI Vs. ELITE ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the revision petitioner in all these Civil Revision Petitions. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed assailing the orders dated 17.10.2005 made in R.C.A. Nos. 546, 547, 549 and 550 of 2001 respectively on the file of the VIII Small Causes cum learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2001 passed in RCOP No. 2546, 2547, 2549 and 2550 of 1997 respectively on the file of the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) The revision petitioner has filed RCOP Nos. 2546, 2547, 2549 and 2550 of 1997 respectively before the learned Rent Controller under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' praying to issue appropriate direction to the respondents/tenants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the shops under their occupation. The Rent Control Original Petitions have been contested by the tenants. The learned Rent Controller ultimately dismissed the Rent Control Original Petition Nos. 2546, 2547, 2549 and 2550 of 1997 filed by the revision petitioner/landlord on 19.04.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/landlord filed RCA Nos. 546, 547, 549 and 550 of 2001 respectively. The Rent Control Appeals have also been dismissed which resulted in the filing of the present Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) Before the learned Rent Controller, common evidence was let in in all the cases. On behalf of the landlord/revision petitioner, it was contended before the learned Rent Controller that the building in question is 75 years old and it is in a dilapidated condition warranting immediate demolition. Before instituting the Rent Control Original Petitions, the landlord/revision petitioner has sent a notice dated 20.03.1997 seeking eviction of the tenants/respondents for which a reply notice dated 10.04.1997 was sent by them denying the request of the landlord/revision petitioner. Before the Rent Controller, a Civil Engineer was also appointed to ascertain the age and condition of the building, but he was prevented by the tenants/respondents from inspecting the building. It was also contended on behalf of the landlord/revision petitioner that the tenants/ respondents are paying a meager amount as rent and in order to augment the income of the landlord by putting the building a commercial complex, eviction of the tenants are necessary.