C RAJAGOPAL Vs. MALLIKA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these Revisions, tenant is the revision petitioner. Both the cases were filed by the same landlord on the allegation that she needs the building for immediate demolition and reconstruction. It is her case that the building is old and dilapidated, that it is more than 60 years old, and that she has the necessary means to reconstruct the building. It is also stated that she has deposited the necessary fees before the Local Authority towards demolishing charges. She has also given an undertaking that she will put up the construction within a very short period as provided under the Statute.

(2.) THE counter petitioner in both the cases is the same. He has raised a common contention that there is no bona fide in the claim of the landlady for demolition and reconstruction. According to the tenant, there were prior proceedings between the parties, where in one case eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default, and in another, fixation of fair rent was sought for. According to the counter-petitioner, in the petition seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default, the landlady failed, and in the other which was for fixation of fair rent, the decision was not in favour of the landlady though there was a marginal increase in the rent. According to the counter petitioner, the building is in good condition, and he himself has made the necessary changes so as to strengthen the building, and therefore, it does not require any reconstruction.

(3.) THE Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above, with no order as to costs. THE parties shall appear before the trial Court on 15-3-1995.