JAYAVEL @ JAYABAL Vs. ANURATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.95 of 2009 in R.C.A.No.4 of 2007 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Subordinate Judge), Ariyalur.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant. The respondent/landlady filed R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2006 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, on the file of the learned Rent Controller [District Munsif], Ariyalur, for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The landlady had stated in the petition that the building was very old one, with temporary tinsheet roof in a worst condition. The landlady had examined one Mr.Shanmugam as P.W.1 and has marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 to substantiate her case. The Tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and he had produced one document as Ex.R.1. The learned Rent Controller [District Munsif], Ariyalur, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner had filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.4 of 2007 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Sub Court, Ariyalur. In the appeal, the petitioner herein had filed an application in I.A.No.95 of 2009 seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to find out that the building is in good condition. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present revision is filed.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent filed the application for demolition and reconstruction. The age and condition of the building is not the only criteria as held by the Division Bench in a judgment reported in (1967) 1 MLJ page 110 [R.P.David Vs. V.N.Danial (died) and others. The only requirement of Section 14(1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act is, the next desire of the landlady to demolish the building and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of constructing a new building. The respondent has filed the application for demolition and reconstruction. The onus of proving the requirement is on the landlady, but the tenant had filed the application with mala fide intention to drag on the proceedings.