B. YAMUNA BAI Vs. N. RANGASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has to be dismissed though not on the ground on which the lower Court based its conclusion, but on the ground that the petitioner -landlady is not entitled to possession of the buildings which are two rooms in this case on the specific legal injunction sanctioned by the principle laid down in Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is common ground that the petitioner sought for the eviction of the respondent from the very same building on the ground that she wanted to demolish and reconstruct the same. This was early in 1964. That application was dismissed. She renewed the request under the present application filed in 1974 on the very same ground, namely demolition and reconstruction. She wanted the tenant to vacate so that she could demolish, reconstruct and occupy the same. The lower court dismissed the application on the ground that it lacked bona fides. I am not inclined to canvass the correctness of this view as this Court has consistently taken the position that orders for eviction under Section 14(1) (b) of the Act when asked for by a landlord, should be granted provided prima facie he satisfied the requirements of the section and the request of the landlord cannot be defeated on extraneous considerations and grounds. But the more formidable contention of Mr. Ganapathi Subramania Iyer is that by reason of the admitted dismissal of an application under similar circumstances and under the same provision of law, the present application for the same relief under the similar circumstances and yet again under the similar provision of law is barred under Section 19 of the Act. Mr. Ramalingam, however, would say that circumstances have changed and that therefore the landlady would be entitled to ask for such an eviction. I am unable to agree

(2.) SECTION 19 is important and it reads thus: