SANTHANALAKSHMI Vs. PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlady before the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing the Rent Control Appeal preferred by tenants, thereby setting aside the eviction of the tenants from the petition premises ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

(2.) The landlady as petitioner filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the respondents / tenants from the petition residential premises bearing Door No. 256 (old No. 122), Ambalathadayar Madam Street, Pondicherry, which is partly terraced and partly tiled building. In the family arrangement, the property was given to the petitioner, which originally belonged to her father. Her father and junior paternal uncle leased the said building to one Gopal Pathar, who was a Goldsmith, the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent, for residential purpose. Gopal Pathar attorned tenancy to the petitioner since 1981 and has been paying the rent at the rate of of Rs. 1000/- per month. Gopal Pathar handed over the front portion of the petition building to the petitioner for the purpose of demolition and to reconstruct a new building and it was demolished to an extent of 40 feet and the petitioner constructed a new building with RCC terrace and has put up rooms in the first floor. The front portion measuring 20' X 10' has been leased to a Hardware merchant and the remaining portion of the ground floor to an extent of 64 feet north - south continues to be very old and dilapidated. The remaining portion of the petition building is 100 years old and the entire structure is in a damaged condition. It is stated that the super structure of the building rests only on Palmirah rafters with country tiles. The petitioner requested Gopal Pathar to vacate the premises for the purpose of demolition and to put up new building since it is in an important commercial locality surrounded by several shops, markets and banks. The said Gopal Pathar promised to vacate and surrender vacant possession after the marriage of his only daughter, the second respondent, and also performed her marriage and thereafter, he died in 1995. It is further stated that the petitioner has obtained approved plan to put up new construction from the Pondicherry Planning Authority as per sanction dated 05.10.1998. The petitioner's husband has retired and all the terminal benefits have been invested in the Bank for the purpose of demolishing the petition premises and to put up new construction. The petitioner also owns a separate building for residential purpose in Rainbow Nagar in 4th Cross bearing Door No. 29, a new brick built terraced and storeyed building and she is also getting a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- per month in addition to the petitioner living in the ground floor. The petitioner undertakes to construct a new building in the demised premises within a period of one year from the date of recovery of possession. On these grounds, the petitioner / landlady sought for eviction of the respondents / tenants from the petition premises.

(3.) The respondents as tenants filed counter stating that the petition building is in a sound condition being repaired then and there. The husband of the first respondent became tenant under one Kalidass, to whom originally the petition premises belonged to, and it was partly terraced and partly tiled for residential purpose and for the purpose of carrying on goldsmith business. The tenancy commenced in 1919 on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- and the rent was being increased time and again. The petitioner demanded enhanced rent under the threat of need of the premises for demolition and reconstruction. It is stated that the husband of the first respondent tendered the rent of Rs.500/- for the month of January 1992 and the same was received by the petitioner and was also acknowledged by her by issuing the receipt dated 10.02.1992. Subsequently, the said rental amount was returned by her. It is stated that the husband of the first respondent sent the rent by Money Order on 13.02.1992 and it was also refused. So the husband of the first respondent issued lawyer's notice dated 27.02.1992 to furnish the name of the Bank for depositing the rent in Court and to follow further procedures as contemplated under Section (4) (5) of Section 8 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Reply notice was issued on 06.3.1992 by the petitioner / landlady in which it is admitted by the petitioner / landlady that the house was roofed by country tiles with the country lavatory block and in the year 1985, it was partially remodeled by Bombay terrace with Bombay lavatory block. The husband of the landlady has written a letter on 07.01.1992 to the husband of the first respondent for which the husband of the first respondent sent rejoinder notice for reply of the landlady through his Advocate on 06.3.1992. In the reply notice, it was stated that the front portion of the petition building was required by the petitioner / landlady to reconstruct and to put up new two rooms and promised to lease it to the husband of the first respondent. Believing the same, the husband of the first respondent handed over the front portion of the petition premises. But after the new construction of two rooms about 12 years back, it was leased out to third parties on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- for each room situated in the ground floor bearing Door No. 258 as well as in the first floor respectively.