M C THANGAVELAN Vs. T S SIVARAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority after remand of the matter by this Court in C.R.P.219 of 1988 dated 27.7.1994 in respect of the petition mentioned non residential premises bearing old D.No.85-A, new D.No.129 at Saint Theresa Street, Pondicherry. The land lord filed rent control petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Pondicherry (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for demolition and reconstruction of the premises. It is stated in the petition that the premises is very old and in a dilapidated condition, necessary approvals have been obtained from the Town Planning Authorities and the land lord is having ready cash and the premises is also required for personal occupation by the land lord for non residential purpose after new construction.

(2.) The petition was resisted by the tenant on the ground that the requirement is without bona fide.

(3.) The Rent Controller considering the evidence and exhibits marked on either side dismissed the rent control petition as per order dated 22.4.1986 finding that the requirement of the petition premises by the landlord is without bona fide and not within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The order was challenged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in M.A.No.68 of 1986 and the appeal was allowed. The tenant challenged the said judgment before this court in C.R.P.No.219 of 1988 in which this court remitted the matter back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority as per the order dated 28.7.1994 for re-consideration in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in "M/s P.Orr & Sons (P) Ltd., .vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. (1990 II MLJ (SC) 12) and affording opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence. After remand of the matter, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord P.W.1 examined himself and further marked Exs.P.9 and P.10. The tenant further examined the Engineer as R.W.2 on his side besides the Advocate-Commissioner as C.W.1 and Exs.C1 to C10 were also marked. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considering such evidence already on record and further evidence adduced, ultimately found that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and in that view allowing the appeal and ordered eviction. The judgment is under challenge in this revision petition.