SANTHANAKRISHNAN Vs. ABIRAMI ELECTRICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful landlords before the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority are the revision petitioners.

(2.) The revision petitioners filed H.R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1993 in the Rent Control Court at Pondicherry for the eviction of the respondent/tenant from the petition non- residential premises bearing old door No.1 and new door No.261, Ananda Rangapillai Street, Pondicherry under Section 14(1)(b) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as "the Act") for demolition and reconstruction. The house is situate at the junction of the Ananda Rangapillai Street and West Boulieward and now known as Anna Salai and the house is facing north in Ananda Rangapillai Street and the western side of the said house facing west Boulieward, a part of the house and converted into a shop and let out to the respondent for non-residential purpose. The property devolved upon the revision petitioners 1 and 2, on the death of Balasundaram, the father of the revision petitioners 1 and 2 and the rent is collected by the third revision petitioner, the mother of the revision petitioners 1 and 2. On the death of Balasundaram, the entire house was divided into two equally between the revision petitioners 1 and 2. Since the third revision petitioner is collecting the rent, she is added as a formal party. The building is old and in dilapidated condition and it is more than 80 years old. The building is also not strong. Pillars had to be raised additionally to the walls which had been old. The raising of the first floor is not possible. After the partition, the use of common entrance of the building is not possible between the revision petitioners 1 and 2 and so, the second revision petitioner intends to have independent entrance on the western side to his portion of the building. For that purpose, the second revision petitioner intends to demolish his portion and also applied for necessary sanction. The second revision petitioner intends to construct a residential-cum- commercial building for better returns and the second revision petitioner also obtained estimate through a competent Engineer.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the tenant that the petition premises is not part and parcel of the building bearing old No.1 and new door No.261 Ananda Rangapillai Street and it has no connection with the building bearing door No.261. The premises has a separate entrance and it is no way connected with the building bearing door No.261. On the western side of the building, facing west Boulieward, there are four shops with separate entrance to each shop and separate door numbers. The respondent is a tenant in the premises. The respondent was paying the rents to the third revision petitioner and in December, 1992, the petitioners demanded enhanced rent of Rs.1,200/- per month. Though the tenant agreed to enhance the rent of Rs.200/- per month to the rent already payable by him, the offer was not acceptable by the third revision petitioner. So, the respondent is sending the rents through money order. The building is not old and in dilapidated condition. The other averments in the Rent Control Original Petition with regard to the condition of the building are all incorrect. In fact, the upstairs portion of the terrace of the premises was constructed recently. Even though there are four shops facing West Boulieward, the eviction proceedings have been initiated only in respect of the petition shops. The petition has been filed only to evict from two shops and in respect of other two shops no steps have been taken. The revision petitioners 1 and 2 have got a common entrance and so there is no necessity to have separate entrance on the western side. It is denied that the second revision petitioner wants to construct a residential-cum-commercial building for better returns. The second revision petitioner has no sufficient funds to put up new construction after demolition.