K S RAMU DIED Vs. RUKMANI SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the landlords, who lost the case before the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in securing eviction of the respondents/tenants from the petition non-residential premises on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

(2.) The landlords have filed the Rent Control Original Petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") stating that the properties described in schedules 'A' and 'B' to the petition are situated in No.2 Road, Mayiladuthurai Town. The immovable property in 'A' schedule is a theatre and its adjuncts and so is a non-residential premises. The movables in 'B' schedule are the furniture, fans, electric lights and fittings etc., which form part of the fixtures in 'A' schedule theatre. The revision petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the first revision petitioner and the revision petitioners 4 to 7 are the sons of the elder brother of the first revision petitioner. The second respondent is the daughter of the first respondent, who is the wife of the deceased K.C.Sundaram and who died on 21.7.1990 and he was the lessee of the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties for the past several years as per the rental arrangement. The respondents, who are the sole legal heirs of the deceased K.C.Sundaram, are in possession of the lease-hold properties. Lastly, the rental agreement was entered into between the deceased K.C.Sundaram and the revision petitioners/petitioners 2 to 7 on 1.10.1987 for a period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/- in respect of the 'A' schedule property and a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month for 'B' schedule property. As such, the deceased K.C.Sundaram was tenant in respect of the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. The buildings in the 'A' schedule property are more than 60 years old. The main auditorium is a brick built zinc roofed building and is not in a sound condition. The site of the 'A' schedule property and its adjuncts have an area of 38,000 square feet and the same is situate in the heart of the commercial locality where there is demand for commercial accommodation with very handsome returns. Therefore, the revision petitioners intend to pull down and demolish the entire existing building and to put up a new building thereon. They want to put up a shopping complex over the site for the purpose of augmenting their income and make the site of the 'A' schedule property with the construction of the proposed commercial complex more remunerative and productive. The revision petitioners have sufficient funds to put up shopping complex and they have made arrangement for designing the complex and for drawing plans for the said purpose. The revision petitioners undertake to demolish the material portion of the building by not later than one month and would complete before the expiry of three months from the date of recovery of possession of the entire building or before the expiry of further period that will be extended. To the lawyer notice dated 31.10.1990, the respondents caused reply notice dated 3.11.1990.

(3.) The petition was opposed in the counter, in which it is stated that the furniture mentioned in the petition do not form part of the subject matter of the lease. The furniture had become unusable and the same can be handed over. The entire furniture available in the property have been put up and arranged only by the tenants and they are the owners of 28 fans installed in the theatre. The building is not in dilapidated condition and it is a brick built zinc roofed building but in a sound condition. It is admitted that the area is an important area, but it has not developed commercially. The requirement for demolition and reconstruction is mala fide and the Rent Control Original Petition is filed only for the purpose of evicting the tenant. The revision petitioners do not have sufficient funds for the proposed shopping complex. As per the demand made by the revision petitioners and as agreed in the presence of common relation of both and the son-in-law of the first respondent and in the presence of the 4th revision petitioner that the rent is to be paid at Rs.7,500/- per month and accordingly a cheque was also sent for Rs.7,500/-, but the cheque was not presented for encashment. Even in the notice, it is mentioned that the property will fetch Rs.15,000/- per month thereby indicating that the intention of the revision petitioners is only to get enhanced rent.