T.M. SANTHAKUMARI Vs. NARASINGA MUDALIAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions, six in number, have been preferred against the order of the learned appellate authority reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller directing the eviction of the tenants. The respondents in all the civil revision petitions are in occupation of different portions of the building belonging to the civil revision petitioner heroin as tenants from month to month. The landlady filed six petitions for their eviction on the ground that she wanted possession of the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller found that the petitions were bonafide, that the landlady had done all that she need do at that stage, as preparation for demolition and reconstruction of the building, that the building was sufficiently old to require demolition and reconstruction and that the landlady had sufficient means to demolish the building and reconstruct another building on the site thereof. However, on appeal the learned appellate authority took a different view. The learned appellate authority refused to accept the view of the learned Rent Controller that the mere fact that the application for constructing a building on the site of the existing building after demolishing the latter was filed subsequently, does not discredit the case of the landlady. The appellate authority took the view that the application should have been filed prior to the institution of the proceeding for eviction. The appellate authority also found that the landlady did not have sufficient means to demolish the building now in existence and construct another building thereon. He therefore, allowed the appeals and dismissed the petitions for eviction. Against this order of the learned appellate authority, these six civil revision petitions have been preferred.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the building which is now in the occupation of the tenants is not less than 50 years old and the front portion of the building has, already, fallen into ruins and is in a dilapidated condition. The building constitutes a hazard to the occupants themselves. Therefore there can be no doubt about the fact that the building does require to be demolished. In N.A. Ramanatha Iyer and Ors. v. Bathul Bai and Ors. : (1971) 2 MLJ 383 . Ramanujam J., has held that:

(3.) BONA fides is a question of degrees. Bona fides have to be assessed with reference to the circumstances and facts of each particular case and in the context and framework of the situation prevailing at that time. The situation here is that the building does require to be demolished on account of its dilapidated condition. The landlady is bound to give an undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building shall be substantially commenced by her not later than one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date she recovers possession of the entire building or before the expiry of such further period as the Controller may fix by reason of Section 14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. If she fails to do so, the tenants can seek recovery under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act.