RAVINDRANATH Vs. SAMUEL ASIRVATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as' 'the act' ')is tie petitioner in this civil revision petition.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord raised three grounds in r. C. O. P. No. 95 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirunelveli for securing the eviction of the petitioner. But, this civil revision petition is concerned only with one of the abovesaid three grounds viz. , demolition and reconstruction (under Sec. l4 (l) (b) of the Act ). THE R. C. O. P. was dismissed on all the said three grounds. But, in the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord in R. C. A. No. 22 of 1986, the said dismissal was set aside and eviction was granted on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Hence the civil revision by the tenant.

(3.) THAT apart, a more, vital factor against the landlord is that as per the abovesaid Ex. A-1 itself, the present case is not one of ' 'demolition' 'at all. Admittedly as per Ex. A- l, only the abovesaid tiled roof has to be changed and not other portions of the building including the walls on which the tiled roof is resting. P. W. I has also deposed in cross-examination as follows: Earlier he also deposed as follows: No doubt, thus he has stated that after removing the abovesaid tiled roof, he is going to put up a terrace instead, and put up two rooms in the first floor over and above the said terrace. But Ex. A-1 plan does not show that the walls on which the tiled roof rests are also to be demolished. No doubt, P. W. I stated contrary to what is contained in Ex. A-1 that he is going to demolish the said walls also. But, if he docs so, it will be in violation of ex. A-1 plan. If really, after second thoughts he had decided to demolish the walls also and put up a new wall therein, he would have got Ex. A-1 plan modified at least after the disposal of the R. C. O. P. and before the appeal was disposed of. The learned counsel for the tenant specifically also points out that the landlord has even filed on application for reception of additional documents while the rent control appeal was pending in order to prove his means for putting up the new building. While so, according to the said counsel, if really he wan ted to demolish the abovesaid walls, he would have applied for necessary alteration in Ex. A-1 plan and obtained sanction therefor and would have filed changed plan into court at least at the appellate stage. But, the landlord has not done so, All these show, according to the said counsel, the' 'demolition' 'as such was not in the contemplation of the landlord at all.