N MASILAMANI Vs. KUTTY NAIR DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlords who lost their case before the Appellate Authority but, however succeeded before the Rent Controller have canvassed the same challenging the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Authority made in R.C.A.No.59 of 1981 dated 31.10.1983 by which order the finding given by the Rent Controller, Kancheepuram made in R.C.O.P.No.32 of 1973 dated 16.4.1981 was reversed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the revision are stated hereunder: THE rental premises is one of the portions of the building bearing Door No.108, Kamarajar Street, Kancheepuram so leased out to the first respondent long back and the quantum of rent payable by him at the time of the filing of the original petition was Rs.125 permensem. Though, this is a part of a non-residential building, it was under the occupation and tenancy right of the respondent herein since the other tenant in the adjacent portion has already vacated the premises in question which alone is required for the revision petitioners for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction as provided under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). As the demised building was also required for their own use and occupation, after having given notice to the respondents herein and terminating the tenancy as contemplated under the law, a petition for eviction under two grounds viz., for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and for own use and occupation was filed. THE Rent Controller after having recorded the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties considered the matter and ordered eviction of the respondents on the ground that the requirement of the demised premises of the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction is bona fide but, however, rejected the next ground of own use and occupation.

(3.) MR.V.R.Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner justifiably contended before me that the eviction proceedings have been initiated by the revision petitioner before the Rent Controller under Sec. 14(1)(b) coupled with Sec.10(3)(a) of the Buildings Act. Though the Rent Controller has negatived the second ground sought for by the petitioners, learned counsel has frankly conceded that ground prayed for under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Buildings Act for own use and occupation and additional accommodation cannot be allowed to go and that therefore he has conceded that the finding given by the learned Rent Controller is quite on par with the law and correct and cannot be rejected. But, however, the grievance expressed by the bar on behalf of the petitioners is that passing of the impugned judgment by the Appellate Authority, while accepting the bona fide claim of the respondents for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, is true, valid and concurrent with the learned Rent Controller excepting the landlord to give a statutory undertaking which is quite alien to the procedure contemplated under the Act and that therefore, the Appellate Authority totally came to an erroneous conclusion and it is not only illegal, but unlawful and that therefore it is liable to be set aside.