A LAKSHMANAN Vs. KANNIAMMAL ALIAS PATTAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the petitioners in both the revisions. THE respondent/landlady instituted R. C. O. P. Nos. 16 and 17 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller/ District Munsif, Arni, for eviction of the tenants under Sec. l4 (l) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). THE tenants resisted the eviction petitions contending inter alia, that the landlady is not the owner of the superstructure and that the applications for demolition and reconstruction under Sec. l4 (l) (b) of the Act are not maintainable. THEy also resisted the applications contending that the tenancy premises is in good state of repairs, that the landlady is not possessed of funds to put up construction, that the petitions are devoid of merits and lacks bona fides and that therefore, there is no reason to order eviction. THE learned Rent Controller by a common order dated 28. 8. 1986 dismissed the eviction petitions. Being aggrieved, the landlady preferred R. C. A. Nos. 3 and 8 of 1987 before the Appellate Authority/ Subordinate judge, Arni. THE learned Appellate Authority by a common judgment dated 20. 10. 1987, allowed the appeals filed by the landlady and set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller. Being aggrieved, the tenants have preferred the present revisions for the various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of revisions.

(2.) I have heard Mr. E. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants and Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondent/ landlady.

(3.) MERE carrying out minor repairs here and there occasionally by the tenants and keeping the building in good state of repairs will not in any way prevent the landlady from seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. It is always open to the landlady to demolish an admittedly old building and put up a new building in that place with a view to augment her income. I am also of the view that the non-examination of the commissioner or an engineer is not fatal to the case. In this case, the landlady has proved that she has enough funds and has also taken steps by obtaining the plan for demolition and reconstruction, which would, in my opinion, be sufficient to hold that the landlady requires the building for immediate demolition and reconstruction. In fact, the landlady in her evidence has stated that if necessary, she may even sell the lands of an extent of two cawnies with pump set and also the two houses in Ami and raise funds by such sale. This apart, she has also stated in her evidence that she has got rs. 10,000 in savings bank account and Rs. 5,000 on hand. The tenants have not disputed the statement of the landlady that she has got funds in the bank account.