AMEERUDDIN Vs. PREMAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the revisions arise out of a common order passed by the Appellate Authority ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The petitioners are the tenants. The respondent filed Rcop Nos. 285 and 287 of 1979 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Coimbatore, against the two tenants/revision petitioners for eviction under Section 14(1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Her contention was that the building was on old one and not in a good condition and that the same is required for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. BOTH the tenants contended inter alia, that the petition building was in a good condition and did not require demolition at all, that the landlady demanded fabulous rent and consequent upon her failure to get such enhanced rent, she had come to court with the vexatious petitions contending untenable grounds, that the need is not bonafide and that therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the documents and also the averments made in the petition and in the counter, held that the need of the landlady is not bonafide, and on this ground and on other grounds, dismissed both the petitions. The landlady thereupon preferred RCA Nos.10 and 11 of 1989 before the Appellate Authority/subordinate judge, Coimbatore. The learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeals and ordered eviction. Against the common judgment of the Appellate Authority, the tenants have preferred the present revisions.

(2.) I have heard Mr. K. Sampath, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner in CRP No. 1119 of 1990, Mr. S. Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP No. 1334 of 1990 and Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in both the revisions.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the rent control proceedings, the landlady took out an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property in regard to the nature and soundness of the building. The advocate Commissioner has filed his report in K.A.No.71 of 1982 in RCOP.No.285 of 1979 stating that the portion in occupation of the tenants was found locked with three locks on the northern side and therefore, he could not see the nature of the building inside. It is useful to extract paragraph 5 of his report, which is as follows:- "On the northern side and the eastern side, the said building is covered by wooden planks, as shown in the plan, on the said plans, cinema posters have been found pasted. On some parts of the walls, the plasterings have found fallen. Since the building is kept under lock and key, I could not see the nature of the building inside. On the western wall, I found in number of places, plasterings found fallen. The Commissioner has only said that on some parts of the walls, the plasterings have fallen. In my opinion, the report of the Advocate Commissioner will be of no assistance to the court to come to any conclusion in regard to the condition of the building.