KHYRUNNISSA Vs. ROSE NISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the revision petitioners and they have lost before both the courts below. The relevant facts in each of the R. C. O. P. are as follows : r. C. O. P. No. 8 of 1999 (C. R. P. No. 459 of 2005)The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs. 120/ -. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction and also for own use and occupation. R. C. O. P. No. 9 of 1999 (C. R. P. No. 460 of 2005)The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs. 70/ -. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction and also for own use and occupation. R. C. O. P. No. 11 of 1999 (C. R. P. No. 461 of 2005)The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs. 110/ -. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction and also for own use and occupation. R. C. O. P. No. 13 of 1999 (C. R. P. No. 462 of 2005)The tenancy is non-residential. The monthly rent is Rs. 300/ -. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction and also for own use and occupation. R. C. O. P. No. 12 of 1999 (C. R. P. No. 463 of 2005)The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs. 120/ -. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction and also for own use and occupation. R. C. O. P. No. 25 of 1999 (C. R. P. No. 464 of 2005)The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs. 120/ -. Eviction was sought for on the ground of willful default and demolition and re-construction. R. C. O. P. No. 7 of 1999 (C. R. P. No. 465 of 2005)The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs. 90/ -. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction and also for own use and occupation. R. C. O. P. No. 28 of 1999 (C. R. P. No. 466 of 2005)The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs. 90/ -. Eviction was sought for on the ground of demolition and re-construction. R. C. O. P. No. 27 of 1999 (C. R. P. No. 467 of 2005)The tenancy is residential. The monthly rent is Rs. 70/ -. Eviction was sought for on the ground of willful default and demolition and re-construction.

(2.) ALL these premises are part of the same building and the respondents have pleaded that the building is composite in structure with distinct tenements and that the building cannot be demolished without eviction of all the petitioners. The respondents have also undertaken, "to commence the demolition within one month and also to complete the same within three months from the date of recovering possession from the petitioners". Wherever the respondents have sought for eviction also on the ground of owner's occupation, the landlords have stated that the premises in the occupation of the respective tenants will be converted to residential purposes after re-construction. The respondents have also stated that they have taken necessary steps to obtain the sanctioned plan from the Municipality and that they are having sufficient means to demolish and re-construct the building, which is old and dilapidated.

(3.) THE petitioners denied all the averments of the respondents and also stated that unless a valid license is obtained as required under Chapter X-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, which applies to hill stations, no landlord can demolish a building and therefore, since the landlords have not applied for such a permission, on this ground alone, the eviction petitions should be dismissed.