K LINGAM Vs. E THANDAYUTHAPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlords, who lost the case before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority are the revision petitioners.

(2.) THE revision petitioners filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction of the respondent from the petition non-residential premises under Sections 14(1)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 that the petition non-residential premises is bona fide required for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and that the respondent committed acts of waste.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the single petition filed by both the revision petitioners is not maintainable. As regards the old and dilapidated condition of the building, it is argued for respondent that the building is in sound condition and as such, not required for immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. THE intention of the landlords is only to evict the respondent from the petition premises. THE learned counsel further contended that the landlords did not have sufficient means to demolish the petition premises and put up new construction and their financial aspects have not been proved by the revision petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the estimate for the proposed construction have not been filed. As regards the acts of waste alleged, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent started blood bank in the year 1987 in the first floor only after obtaining permission from the previous landlord and has not committed acts of waste and since according to the learned counsel no perverse finding has been recorded by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority need not be reversed. THE learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported in Vijay Singh, etc. etc. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal reported in 1996(II) CTC 586 (1997-1 L.W. 218), in which the Full Bench of the Apex Court ruled in paragraph 13:- "Permission under Section 14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller on mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately demolish the building in question to erect a new building. At the same time it is difficult to accept the stand of the appellants that the building must be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human habitation. For granting permission under Section 14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bona fide or not. For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account: (1) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. THEse are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b). No court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with other facts and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller."