M ANNADURAI Vs. SMT C MANGALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Thiruvarur in R.C.A.No.11 of 2000 dated 5.11.2001 whereby he has confirmed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thiruvarur in R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1997.

(2.) THE landlady viz., one Mangalam filed R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1997 on the grounds of wilful default under Secs. 10(2)(i), requirement for owner's occupation under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) and requirement for demolition and reconstruction under Sec. 14(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. THE premises bearing door N0.6D at Dharmakovil street at Thiruvarur belongs to the said landlady. It is a non-residential premises. THE tenant viz., Annadurai is doing carpentry work with machineries and the agreed monthly rent is Rs.350 according to English calendar. THE tenancy arrangement is oral. THE tenant did not pay rent due from August 1995 wilfully. He is in arrears till June 1997 which comes to Rs.8,050. For some time, the tenant locked the premises and then filed a suit in O.S.No.106 of 1996 before the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam with the prayer that he should not be evicted except under due process of law by the landlady. THE petition mentioned premises is in very bad condition and it has to be demolished and new construction should be put up with RCC and it is required for such purpose. Further, the landlady is doing business in sales of cool drinks and for that pur- pose also, the petition mentioned premises is required. THE landlady is having sufficient means to put up new construction. She has also given an undertaking that she would demolish and reconstruct the building within the time allowed by the Rent Controller. In this respect, notice was also issued through counsel to the tenant to vacate the premises. But, the tenant replied with false allegations and thereby the tenant should be vacated.

(3.) I have gone through the entire oral evidence and documents available on either side in the light of discussions, approach and reasoning of the authorities below and on such keen perusal. I am not able to see that there is error in appreciation of facts or in law in a way to invite this Court's interference through this revision petition. In other words, I am of the view that the material factors that have to be taken into consideration in respect of bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction as indicated in the ruling reported in Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Animal Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Animal Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Animal (1997)1 L. W. 218 have been taken into consideration by the authorities below and thereby the authorities below have come to the conclusion that the requirement for demolition and reconstruction is a bona fide one.