UMSALMA BIBI Vs. R. LAKKIA GOWDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These related revision proceedings involve a question of considerable interest, in the context of a proceeding by the landlord under S. 14(1)(b) of Madras Act 18 of 1960 for recovery of possession of the building bona fide for demolition and reconstruction. The facts themselves are not now in controversy, though they were in dispute in the Courts below. We may now take it as established that the landlord (here respondent) required this structure or entire building, consisting of several door numbers or distinct tenements, for demolition and re -construction, so that he could therein house his own commercial undertaking, which is a radio business. The Courts have found that the landlord was serious about his intention in this regard, that there is an approved plan (Ex. A. 1), and that this is a bona fide proposal by the landlord, who is now conducting the radio business in rented premises, to shift here after reconstruction of his own building. The Courts have specifically found that this building, which relates to the application under S. 14(1)(b), is situate in an important business locality, and that, judged from the point of view of finance, preliminary steps, approval of concerned authorities etc. the requirement of the landlord is bona fide.

(2.) A ground of maintainability was urged in this form. Though there are separate door numbers or tenements, as I have already indicated, the landlord filed a single application in respect of the entire structure, under S. 14(1)(b) of the Act. It was urged that this was unauthorised and illegal and that there should have been distinct applications for each distinct door number or tenement, which is the subject -matter of a separate tenancy. It has further been urged before me that distinct defenses might be put forward by the concerned tenants, and that, conceivably, one such tenancy may be saved by the operation of S. 14, sub -S. (5), and not otherwise. Further, it is conceivable that other unrelated grounds, such as ground of 'wilful default' in payment of rent, might be included within the scope of one such tenement, but not another. Per -contra, the learned revisional authority pointed out the anomaly and absurdity that might ensue "if eviction was ordered only in respect of one or two door numbers" which may happen, if independent petitions had been filed against each tenant on behalf of the landlord.

(3.) The point here is that the word "building" has two distinct connotations. One is the connotation in the ordinary usage of the English language, to which I shall presently refer. The other is a connotation derived from S. 2(2) of Madras Act 18 of 1960, which is a definition. By virtue of this definition, "building" will mean or include a part of a building "let or to be let separately". In other words, the statute embodies a technical definition, which makes 'building,' equivalent to tenement, as ordinarily understood in law.