(1.) CHALLENGING a judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruvarur, made in RCA No.12 of 2003 affirming an order of the Rent Controller, Tiruvarur, in RCOP No.3 of 2002 filed by the respondent herein seeking eviction on the grounds of demolition and reconstruction, under Sections 10(3)(a)(ii) and 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23/72, the petitioner/tenant has brought forth this civil revision petition.
(2.) THE case of the respondent/landlady before the Courts below was that the petition mentioned property belonged to her; that the revision petitioner has been occupying a shop, wherein he is conducting his business, at the rate of Rs.40/- per month towards rent; that the building is required for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a new building; that the landlady has got three sons; that the premises is required for carrying on their business; that a notice was issued; but, containing false allegations, a reply notice has been issued by the tenant, and under the circumstances, the landlady was constrained to approach the Court for an order of eviction.
(3.) IT is an admitted position that the petition mentioned property belonged to the respondent/landlady, and the revision petitioner has been occupying the shop as a monthly tenant. The question that arose for consideration before the authorities below and equally here also, is that whether the building in question, is required by the landlady for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a new building to enable her sons to carry on their business. IT is also an admitted position that the landlady has got three sons. That apart, they are having a Boundary wherein spare parts are being produced. The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that they are actually having a building of their own in some other place, in which they have been carrying on their business, and hence, she is not entitled to maintain the petition at all as per the provisions of the Act. Once it is brought to the notice of the Court that though they have got a building of their own in which they are carrying on their Boundary, wherein they are manufacturing spare parts and selling the same, they require the building in question, and the building is old, and apart from that, for the better investment, the landlady comes forward to demolish the same and construct a new building, there cannot be any legal impediment for ordering eviction. That apart, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/tenant before the authorities below have been properly rejected, and both the factual and legal positions were in favour of the respondent/landlady. Under the circumstances, the Court has to necessarily reject the revision petition. The lower authorities were perfectly correct in ordering eviction, and this Court does not find anything to interfere with the same.