LAWS(MAD)-2005-8-83

M RAMACHANDRAN Vs. P KRISHNAN

Decided On August 10, 2005
M.RAMACHANDRAN Appellant
V/S
P.KRISHNAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Uthagamandalam in R.C.A.24 of 2001 in and by which, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Uthagamandalam in R.C.O.P.No.73 of 1992 under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was confirmed, the revision petitioner/tenant has filed this revision.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:- THE petition mentioned premises belongs to the landlord viz., P.Krishnan. THE revision petitioner viz., Ramachandran is a tenant of the building for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.125/=. THE premises is about 80 years old and it has been built with mud and bricks and that it is a common tiled one covered by adjacent tenanted premises also. THE premises is lying in the heart of the Ooty Town. Now, the landlord wants to put up new building for the purpose of hotel, etc., after demolishing the entire existing building for the purpose of increasing the source of income from such new construction. THE landlord is having sufficient means and also owns Tea Estate and Finance business. THE landlord also has obtained necessary approved plan and permission from the Ooty Municipality for the purpose of putting up new construction. He has also given undertaking contemplated under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to demolish and put up new construction within the time that may be allowed. THErefore, the requirement of the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is honest and bona fide and thereby the tenant has to be evicted from the premises for that purpose.

(3.) ARGUMENTS of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in the light of the material records available were heard in detail. The facts which are undisputed are to the effect that the age of the building is about 50 years and above and the landlord is owning Tea Estate and doing Finance business and that the landlord has obtained approved plan and permission from the Municipality and necessary undertaking also has been given by the landlord as contemplated under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.