R. SUNDARAM Vs. A.D. PETER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred under S. 25of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act by the landlord whose application under S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act, for eviction of the respondent with a view to demolish and re -construct, has been rejected in limine by the authorities below, in the view that the provisions of S. 14 (1) (b) can be availed of, only when the landlord seeks possession of the entire building for the purpose of demolition and re -construction and not when only possession of apart of the building is sought. The brief facts may be stated. The petitioner owns a building in the city with an open terrace. The ground floor is let out to a tenant who is not a party to this proceeding. On the terrace, there is a thatched shed, of which the respondent is stated to be the tenant. The landlord applied for possession of this terrace with the thatched shed under S. 14 (1) (b), submitting that he intended immediately demolishing the shed and putting up a pucca structure thereon. Whether it is bona fide required by him for demolition and re -construction has not as a fact been gone into. Learned Counsel for the respondent -tenant does not admit before me that the shed belongs to the landlord. These are questions on the merits. The simple question for consideration now in this revision is whether the petition for possession of this portion of the building which is stated to have been separately let out and is in the occupation of the respondent in maintainable under S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. The authorities below have taken the view that in the context of S. 14(1) (b) the building must refer to the entire building and not to any part of it though separately let. Reliance is placed for this contention on the language of S. 14 (1) (b)which runs thus :

(2.) The reasoning is that, when reference is made to the word 'site' it can only refer to a building on the ground, that is, on terra firma or earth. It is reasoned that the petitioner -landlord must claim and intend, demolishing the building as a whole from the ground; otherwise, it would not come within the scope of S. 14 (1) (b). Confirmation for this view is sought from the language employed in S. 14Sub -Cl. (2) (b) which runs thus:

(3.) Emphasis is laid on the language used in the above sub -clause; "entire building."