A ALANGARAM Vs. A GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as' 'the Act' '), who has failed in both the courts below, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition against the concurrent eviction order passed under sec. l4 (l) (b) of the Act.

(2.) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is neither plea, nor proof regarding the dilapidated condition of the petition-building, which, according to the learned counsel, is absolutely required to be pleaded and proved pursuant to the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in P. Orr. and Sons (P.) Limited v. M/s. Associated publishers ( Madras ) Limited, (1990)2 L. W. 547. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, in this regard, contends that the pleading should not be construed strictly and that at any rate even assuming that the abovesaid plea is not in the petition it was in contemplation between the parties and therefore, the evidence in that regard could be looked into and that the courts below have come to the right conclusion on the evidence recorded. He also cited several decisions, which according to him, would support his abovesaid submission.

(3.) NO doubt, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that admittedly the petition-building is a tiled building. But, even the said averment is not there in the abovesaid petition or the schedule therein. Further, the mere fact that the petition-building is a tiled building, would not by itself satisfy the abovesaid requirement under Sec. 14 (1) (b) as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above.