R RAMADOSS Vs. SYED SHAHABUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlords are the petitioners herein. THE landlords filed a petition under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). According to the landlords the petition premises is in a dilapidated condition and it is aged about more than 100 years old. According to them a part of the building was pulled down since it was encroached on the Government land. THE landlords submitted that they are having sufficient means to demolish the existing building and put up a new superstructure, but they did not obtain any sanctioned plan for constructing new structure. Since the building is very old, according to the landlords they are entitled to file a petition under sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction. THErefore according to them they require the petition premises bona fide for immediate demolition and reconstruction. Originally there are three tenants. According to the landlords, two of them vacated and only one tenant is in possession. THE tenant filed a counter stating that the building is not in a dilapidated condition as alleged by the landlords and it is in a sound condition. It was further submitted that the landlords have no means to demolish the existing building put up a new structure. It was also submitted that the landlords have not obtained any sanctioned plan for the purpose of putting up new superstructure. According to the tenant, the landlords have no bona fide requirement as contemplated under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. It was therefore pleaded that the landlords failed to establish their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. THE landlords filed 22 documents. THE tenant filed 2 documents. Exs. C-1 to C-3 are marked as court documents. THE first petitioner and one Annamalai were examined as P. Ws. 1and 2. THE second respondent alone was examined as R. W. 1. After considering the facts arising in this case, the rent controller came to the conclusion that there is bona fide on the part of the petitioners in requiring the petition premises and accordingly eviction was ordered after giving three months time for eviction. On appeal, the rent control appellate authority appraising the facts arising in this case came to the conclusion that the landlords have failed to establish their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec. l4 (l) (b) of the Act. Accordingly, the order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside and the petition for eviction was dismissed. It is against this order, the present revision is preferred by the landlords.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the landlords/ petitioners herein submitted as under: The Rent. Con-trol Appellate Authority was not correct in stating that the landlords failed to give undertaking as contemplated under Sec. 14 (2) (b) of the Act On the other hand, in the petition it was clearly stated that the landlords would commence demolition work within the time stipulated under Sec. 14 (2) (b) of the Act. Therefore it is not correct on the part of the appellate authority to state that no undertaking was given under Sec. l4 (2) (b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority went wrong in stating that the undertaking as contemplated under Sec. 14 (2) (a) of the Act was not given. No undertaking need be given to the tenants as pointed out by the authorities below. But in the present case, the petition was filed under sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, the Rent control Appellate Authority misdirected himself in understanding the provision under which the petiti6n was filed. The Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in stating that the sanctioned plan was not produced by the landlords and therefore there is no bona fide on the part of the landlords in requiring the petition premises under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. As per the earlier decision of this Court, the non-production of sanctioned plan by itself would not disentitle the landlord to file a petition under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the act. Again the learned counsel contended that the ingredients as pointed out by the Supreme Court in M/s. P. Orr & Sons (P) Limited v. M/s. Associated publishers (Madras) Limited, (1990)2 L. W. 547, were established in the present case. Therefore it was submitted that the rent control appellate authority was not correct in reversing the well considered order of the rent controller.

(3.) THUS, the facts on record would go to show undoubtedly that the petition premises is now in a dilapidated condition and the landlord are possessed of sufficient means to put up the new superstructure. The landlord have also given their necessary undertaking in the petition filed under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. Now the landlords have not produced any sanctioned plan for the future construction. But according to the decision of this Court in S. Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan, 94 L. W. 102, cited supra, the non-production of the sanctioned plan by itself would not disentitle the landlord to get an order of eviction under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the matter should go back to the file of the Rent controller for the purpose of redoing since the Rent Control Appellate authority failed to consider the appeal in proper perspective in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. On considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the judicial pronouncements cited supra, I am of the opinion that the matter need not be remitted back to the file of Rent Controller for fresh disposal. Accordingly, the order of the Rent control Appellate Authority is set aside and that the order of the Rent controller is restored.