ALAUDDIN SAHIT Vs. R. JOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner / landlord filed this revision petition against the decree and judgment passed by Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.11 of 2001 wherein reversing the order and decreetal order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in RCOP No.21 of 1998.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in RCOP No.21 of 1998 / landlord referred as revision petitioner and the respondent in the above said OP / tenant referred as respondent hereafter.

(3.) The revision petitioner / landlord filed the petition to evict the respondent from the petition premises (i.e.) Door No.6 in Jinnah Street, Madras Terrace Shop, ground floor under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. Brief facts stated in the eviction petition are that the father of the revision petitioner purchased the petition premises with other portion by sale deed dated 29.01.1975 and in a family partition dated 28.11.1997, the petition premises and its first floor ACC sheet roofed portion were allotted to the revision petitioner. The first floor portion is lying vacant and the same has no access from anywhere since it is surrounded by the properties of third party on the east, west and north and on the south, there is East-West Jinnah Street. According to the revision petitioner, unless a staircase is erected from the petition premises in the above said first floor portion cannot be reached or used or let out. The above said petition premises is situated in a busiest area at Erode town. If the first floor is lying unused, it does not fetch any income to the revision petitioner. The petition premises has become highly dilapidated condition due to old age, developed cracks in the ceilings and in the walls, wooden rafter worn out eaten by pests and the flooring also highly damaged. Therefore, the petition premises need for demolition and re-construction in modern manner providing staircase etc. The revision petitioner is doing money lending and commission business in a rented building at Door No.10, Asad Street, which is a residential locality. Therefore, the revision petitioner approached the respondent to vacate the premises and the respondent and her husband promises to vacate in a couple of months. But, the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.235 of 1998 with false allegations as if the revision petitioner attempted to evict her by unlawful manner. The respondent has also filed a Rent Control Original Petition in RCOP No.13 of 1998 for permission to deposit the rent into Court with false allegation as if the revision petitioner refused to receive the money order and notice. The revision petitioner has made necessary preparation for immediate demolition and re-construction and also given statutory undertaking that if the respondent surrendered possession of the property, the revision petitioner undertakes to commence the work of demolition within one month and complete the same before expiry of three months. The revision petitioner issued a registered notice to the respondent on 20.07.1998 and the respondent has sent a reply with false claim. With the above said averments, the revision petitioner filed the petition for eviction.