LAWS(MAD)-2006-6-257

INDIAN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. SAIFUDIN ABDUL KADAR

Decided On June 01, 2006
INDIAN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION Appellant
V/S
SAIFUDIN ABDUL KADAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant before both the courts below is the revision petitioner herein. The respondents/landlords filed RCOP No.874/1997 under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18/1960 hereinafter called 'the Act') for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant from the premises bearing Door No.25, Jehangir Street, Chennai.1. The respondents have stated in the RCOP that the building is very old and is in a dilapidated condition. Therefore they want to demolish it and build a new building. The petition premises is located in the commercial area and the proposed new building would fetch far better returns. They also stated that they are men of means capable of raising sufficient funds to put up a new structure. They have also sent a letter dated 12.7.1996 offering alternative accommodation to the revision petitioner herein, but the revision petitioner has not opted to avail the offer.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed a counter in RCOP 874/1997 and resisted the eviction proceedings. According to the revision petitioner, the building is in good condition and as the landlords/respondents herein disconnected the water connection to the building, the tenant was forced to file RCOP No.465/1997 for restoration of water supply. In spite of the order of the Rent Controller to restore water supply, the same was not granted by the landlords. Instead, they have filed eviction petition which was not bona fide. The tenant has further pleaded that when the ground floor portion was under the occupation of M/s.Cadex Plastics (P) Ltd., without filing an eviction petition against them, there is no bona fide on the part of the landlords in filing the RCOP. Further the landlords have not filed the demolition certificate also.

(3.) The Rent Controller by an order dated 5.7.2000 allowed the RCOP and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 9.1.2006. Against the concurrent findings of the authorities below, the above revision petition has been filed by the tenant.