A S SK FATHIMA Vs. OMER CLOTH STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these matters arise out of eviction petitions filed in respect of one and the same building which has been let out to different tenants and they are inter-connected and also involve the same issues, they are dealt with together.

(2.) The petitioners in all the above civil revision petitions are the same and they are the landlords who have sought eviction of each of the respondents in these petitions who are tenants under them. Since the defence taken by all the respondents herein in each of the eviction petitions is substantially the same, it is unnecessary to consider their defence separately. The respondents in each of these petitions will hereinafter be compendiously called as tenants and their defence will be considered in common.

(3.) The petitioners are the owners of premises bearing door No. 22 Veerappan St. Madras, in which the respondents are the tenants in respect of various portions of the said premises. The petitioners filed petitions for eviction against the tenants under S.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter called the Act, stating that they have decided to demolish the existing building bearing premises No. 22. Veerappan St. Madras, in order to construct a new building thereon, that they have necessary financial resources to carry out the work of demolition and reconstruction, that their requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide that in spite of the notice issued to the tenants they have not vacated the premises and that, therefore, they are constrained to file the eviction petitions under S.14(1)(b) of the Act. 3A. The tenants resisted the eviction petitions filed by the petitioners on the ground that the building is in a good condition, that it was built only about 25 years back, that it is not in a dangerous or dilapidated condition so as to warrant demolition immediately, that the requirement of the landlords for demolition and reconstruction is not at all bona fide, that the applications for eviction have been filed only to compel the tenants to pay enhanced rents, that the landlords have no sufficient funds to undertake the alleged work of demolition and reconstruction, and that in any event, the eviction petitions having been filed by the power agents of the landlords, they cannot legally be maintained.