SARAVANA AND CO. Vs. LALITHA NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are tenants under the respondent's premises in respect of two shop portions bearing Nos.1 & 2 at Old No.10, New No.31, Arya Gowda Road, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033.

(2.) The case of the respondent/landlord before the Rent Controller Court is that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition and she requires it for immediate demolition and re-construction. Moreover, the Kalyana Mandapam, which is located in the premises, lacks modern facilities, and therefore, she sought for eviction on the ground of Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The petition was contested by the petitioners/tenants. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and the same was confirmed in the appeal. Against the said order only, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) Mr.G.Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that both the Courts below committed irregularity by not referring to Section 14(1)(b) of the Act which prescribes time limit for demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, it is in violation of the statutory provisions. Further, the learned counsel for appearing the revision petitioners would submit that in case the respondent/landlord was given time limit, as per Section 14(2)(b)of the Act, the petitioners would have had the benefit under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, by which the petitioners can prosecute and punish the landlord/respondent. He would further submit that so far as the merits are concerned, he is not going to deal with the same as the possession was already taken after the dismissal of the said petition by the Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the petitioners have also filed a suit before the civil Court and an order of injunction was sought restraining the respondent/landlord from demolishing the building. He would admit that though the building had already been demolished, the grievance aired by him is that the required mandatory provision has not been complied with. On the above line of the submission, he seeks an order to set aside the eviction order passed by the lower Courts.