GNANASEKARAN, M.B.B.S. Vs. SULTAN MOHIDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both sides, all the three revision petitions are taken up for disposal. These revision petitions are filed challenging the orders of the Courts below concurrently directing the eviction of the revision petitioners/tenants on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

(2.) The respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P. Nos. 980, 978 and 979 of 2005 respectively for eviction of the petitioners along with other tenants on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The petitions were decreed in their favour. Challenging the same, the tenants filed R.C.A. Nos. 469, 471 and 470 of 2010 respectively before the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') which were dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) The main ground of attack made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the respondents/landlords, just three weeks prior to the judgment in the Rent Control Appeals sold the undivided share of the land to a third party, which was not brought to the notice of the appellate court and the eviction order based on the bona fide requirement of the landlords at the time of filing of eviction will not enure to the benefit of the subsequent purchaser. Therefore, the order of eviction is bad in law. His only requirement was that the subsequent event has to be taken note of, because the landlords have parted the property and therefore, the property cannot be put in for eviction. In this connection, he would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Arumuga Naicker and Ors. v. T.G. Baladhandayuthapani and others, 1998 1 LW 616for the proposition that after the eviction, if the property has been sold, then the purchaser has to give an undertaking, which was not there. Therefore, in that particular case, it was remitted back to the lower court for fresh consideration at least to that extent the Court has to take note of it. He would also rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Sheshambal (dead) through Lrs v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and others, 2010 2 LW 189 for the proposition that date on which the requirement arose has to be taken note of and has to be considered and considering that the Court has to definitely take note of the subsequent event and the Court is entitled to mould the relief on the subsequent events. Therefore, the fact that admittedly the purchaser has come into record, the petitions that have been filed earlier has lost its value and they have no legal right now and they have lost their right to contend before the revision court.