C NATARAJAN Vs. G N SHANMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the courts below dated 30.04.1999 in R.C.A.No.2 of 1997 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Court), Tirupathur (arising out of R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ambur) ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

(2.) 1. The shop bearing Door No.46-A in Broad Bazar, Ambur Town belongs to Late Natesa Chettiyar. The said premises was originally let out to the Second Petitioner for doing business in puffed rice. Due to old age, his son viz., the First Petitioner is carrying on the business in the said premises and paying the monthly rent of Rs.65/- Natesa Chettiyar filed a Petition under Section under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (in short "Act") stating that the building is aged more than 80 years and is leaking during the rainy season and seeking to reconstruct the building with R.C.C terraced roofing. Ambur Municipality has approved the plan of demolition and reconstruction and has granted approval for the plan valid from 25.09.1986 to 24.09.1987 (Ex.P.2.). After re-construction, the Landlord requires the entire building for occupation by his son for running general stores business in addition to the book stall business.2. 2. The Petitioners/Tenants resisted the eviction petition contending that the building is in good condition and that there is no bonafide requirement. According to the Petitioners, Late Natesa Chettiar required half of the building for his personal occupation and the Petitioner has also handed over the same, but instead of occupying the same, he has let it out and there is no bonafide requirement and the building is in good condition. According to the Petitioners, there are 13 shops in the name of the First Respondent and another 10 shops in the name of G.N.Sankaran and there is no need for the respondents to construct the shop and the requirement is not bonafide.2.

(3.) CONDITION of the Building:- Admittedly, the shop premises is paved with tiles constructed with brick and mud. The building is aged more than 80 years even at the time of filing the Petition in 1986. The Commissioner, who was examined as C.W.1, in her Report has stated that the Building is constructed with mud and sunshade is damaged and the backside mud wall was also found to be damaged. The building is relatively old and is in damaged condition.