T SUBRAMANIAN Vs. V KALIAPPAN ALIAS KALIRAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant aggrieved against the order of eviction on the ground that the petition non-residential premises is required bona fide for demolition and reconstruction by the Rent Controller and as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, has filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the correctness of such eviction ordered by the Rent Control appellate Authority.

(2.) The respondent/landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition under Section 14(1)(b) and 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as "the Act") to evict the tenant from the petition non-residential premises that the petition non-residential premises is required bona fide for own use and occupation. It is stated in the petition that the landlord is the owner of the building of the petition non-residential premises bearing door Nos.439 and 440 in Cumbum Road, Theni in view of the purchase as per the sale deed dated 2.7.1981. He is carrying on business in the building lying in the south of the petition non-residential premises and the building is not sufficient for the business and its extension. Therefore, he resolved to pull down the petition premises and to annex it with the southern building with suitable alteration on the southern side so as to make it a composite building for business. The landlord has the means to demolish and put up reconstruction and he undertakes to carry out the demolition and to begin reconstruction within the time as contemplated under Section 14(2)(b) of the Act. The landlord made oral demand to the tenant to vacate the petition premises, but the tenant caused lawyer notice on 24.9.1981 attorning the tenancy, to which reply was sent.

(3.) The petition was opposed in the counter denying that the building south of the petition premises belongs to the landlord and that he is carrying on business in that building. The requirement of the petition premises is mala fide. It is stated in the counter that the tenant is carrying on business in the name and style of "Espee Electricals" and if vacated from the petition premises it is very difficult to secure an alternative accommodation. The petition property belongs to Theni Annathana Choultry and the same is endowed to public charity and as such, the vendor K.S.Vijaya Raja alias Paramasivam did not have right to sell the property to the landlord and these facts, the tenant came to know later and as such there have been a bona fide dispute with regard to the validity of sale. Hence the tenant has filed petition under Section 9(3) of the Act for depositing the rent in the Court. The H.R. & C.E. is also necessary party to the petition.