C M KHAJA HUSSAIN Vs. R RAJAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein filed three applications for eviction against his tenants in occupation of door Nos. 14, 14-A to 14-D, krishna Rao Street, Dindigul Town under section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground that the said buildings are required for demolition and reconstruction. THE said petitions for eviction are resisted by each of the tenants on the ground that the petitions for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (b) were only a ruse for enhancing the rent, that the buildings in question are not old and dilapidated and therefore they do not require demolition and reconstruction. THEy also contended that since the landlord wanted to make only certain changes in the front portion of the existing building, the same will not amount to demolition and reconstruction so as to attract section 14 (1 ) (b)of the said Act.

(2.) THE Rent Controller by a common order dated 5th september, 1979 held that the landlord has sufficient means for undertaking the proposed demolition and reconstruction, that the eviction petitions had not been filed with an oblique purpose of evicting the tenants or for claiming enhanced rent from them and that there is also no malicious motive on the part of the landlord in seeking the eviction of the buildings, that long before the filing of the petitions the landlord has been asking the tenants to vacate on the ground that he requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction and that the front portion of the existing building is actually in a damaged condition and as the age of the building is more than 20 years, the applications filed under section 14 (1) (b) of the Act should be taken to be bona fide. In that view the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petitions and directed the eviction of the tenants. However, on appeal, the appellate authority has set aside the orders of eviction passed against the tenants after holding that the structural changes proposed by the landlord will not amount to demolition of the building as contemplated by section 14 ( 1 ) (b)and, therefore, it is not open to the landlord to invoke the said section on the facts and circumstances of this case. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority the landlord is before this Court.