T.U. NARAYANAN Vs. K. PACHLNAYAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the petitioners. The respondents filed applications seeking for the eviction of the petitioners as tenants under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the allegation that they required the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller, the appellate -authority and the revisional authority came to the conclusion that the landlord's request under the circumstances as above was bona fide. Incidentally a contention was raised about the validity of the notice to quit and whether there was a proper undertaking as contemplated under Section 14 (2) (b) of the Act. On this point raised, the tenants could not succeed both before the Rent Controller, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, namely, the District Judge who had the requisite jurisdiction to deal with such revision petitions under Section 25 of the Act as it then was. It is as against the orders of the revisional authority that the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

(2.) AGAIN the contentions raised before the lower authorities were repeated. I am unable to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below who accepted that the requirement of the landlords was bona fide and that they genuinely desire to demolish the building and reconstruct the same. On the question whether there was a valid notice to quit, the notices of termination of tenancy called upon the petitioners as tenants to hand over possession by the 1st July, 1969. The tenancy was in accordance with the English calendar month. Our Court accepted such a notice of termination of tenancy as a valid notice to quit and, in fact, the learned District Judge himself referred to the ruling of our Court in Gnana Prakasam v. Vasz, 60 M.L.J. 293 :, A.I.R. 1931 Mad. 358. In my view, the conclusion arrived at by the revisional authority that the notice to quit was proper, cannot be disturbed.

(3.) ACT XVIII of 1960 provided for a revision to the District Judge of the district concerned against the order of an appellate authority passed under Section 23 of the Act. In cases decided by an appellate authority under Section 23 of the Act and functioning in the presidency town, the said decision is revisable by the High Court direct. The section also provides for the limits of interference. A revision could be entertained for the purpose by the High Court or the District Court, as the case may be, to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order and it may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.