M GANGABAI AMMAL Vs. M SARASWATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petition Nos. 444 and 445 of 2005 have been filed against the judgment and decrees made in R. C. A. No. 357/2002 and 1376/2003 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 10. 12. 2004, confirming the order and decree made in RCO P Nos. 372/1998 and 1695/2002 on the file of the XV and XI Judge, Small Causes court, Chennai, dated 14. 2. 2002 and 7. 8. 2003 respectively.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is tenant under respondent herein in respect of two shop portions of premises at No. 2, Gangai Amman Koil Street, Saligramam , chennai. 26 on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- for each shop portion. THE respondent/landlady evolved a scheme to demolish the entire building including the petition shop portions and to reconstruct into high income yielding one by putting up flats, thereby she could augment the income derived from the said property. She has obtained necessary sanction from the corporation for demolition and reconstruction and she has also obtained planning permission and building plan. She has also got necessary funds. She issued notice to the petitioner herein, but the petitioner/tenant did not come forward to hand over possession. Hence she filed RCOP No. 372/1998 under sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & rent Control) Act, 18/1960 (hereinafter called'the Act').

(3.) THE respondent/landlady also filed two other petitions, i. e. , RCOP. No. 1757/2001 under Sec. 10 (2) (1) of the Act and rcop. No. 1695/2002 under Sec. 4 of the Act which were also allowed by the Rent controller. THE petitioner herein filed appeals against these orders also. A common order was passed by the appellate authority in all these three appeals in which, as already mentioned, the order in RCOP. No. 372/98 was confirmed in RCA. No. 357/2002. THE appellate authority has also confirmed the order in RCOP. No. 1695/2002, but reversed the order made in RCOP. No. 1751/2001 by holding that the landlady has not proved the wilful default on the part of the tenant. Against the order made in RCA No. 926/2003 dismissing RCOP. No. 1751/2001 ( wilful default), the respondent has not preferred any Revision.