MEYYAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. K N BALAKRISHRIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants against whom the authorities below have passed an order for eviction on the applications filed by the respondents in these civil revision petitions under S. 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), are the petitioners herein. The premises in question are adjacent nonresidential buildings situate in N.S.B. Road, Tiruchirapalli in the occupation of the petitioners. Admittedly, the respondents in these civil revision petitions who are related as son and father are the owners of these buildings and the petitioners have been in occupation on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 50. According to the respondents, their buildings in the occupation of the petitioners are old and aged more than 60 years and no repairs have been done. Claiming that the buildings in the occupation of the petitioners are situate in a commercially busy locality and that if the existing buildings are demolished and new constructions are put up with all modern amenities, they will fetch a good income and stating that they are possessed of sufficient means to undertake the project of demolition and reconstruction and had also taken the necessary steps in that regard, the respondents filed H. R. C. 0. P. Nos, 295 of 1979 and 296 of 1979 under S. 14(1)(b) of the Act playing for an order of eviction against the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioner in C. R. P. 1253 of 1982 disputed the claim of the respondent therein that the building in his occupation is an old one and requires demolition and reconstruction. The means of the landlord as well as his bona fides were questioned. The building in the occupation of the petitioner in C.R.P. 1253 of 1982 according to him was not an old one and was not in need of demolition and reconstruction. The petitioner also put forward a plea that there was a demand for enhanced rent but that it was refused to be complied with which led to an attempt to disconnect the electricity service connection which necessitated the filing of a suit and it ended in a decree and, therefore, the requirement of the. Respondent was characterized to be not bona fide.

(3.) The petitioner in C.R.P. 1398 of 1982, denied that the building in his occupation is an old one. The building, according to him, was in good repair and therefore did not require to be demolished. The means of the respondent in C.R.P. 1398 of 1982 to demolish the existing structure and put up a new construction was also disputed. The application for eviction was characterised as one lacking in bona fides.