KOLLA RAVINDRA ALIAS K RAVI Vs. SUSHEELA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the learned Rent Control appellate Authority, VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai made in rca. No. 1340 of 2005 affirming the order of the Rent Controller, XIV Judge, small Causes Court, Chennai made in RCOP. No. 2215 of 2004 by a common order dated 11. 11. 2005 along with other RCOPs.

(2.) THE Court heard the learned counsel on either side.

(3.) ADVANCING the arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner/ tenant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the landlady filed RCOPs referred to above, four in number, against all the tenants on the ground that the building was required for immediate demolition and reconstruction and there was thoroughly lack of bona fide. Two Engineers were examined. One on the side of the petitioner and one on the side of the respondent. Thus both the courts have recorded the finding that the building was old and it has got to be demolished. But in the instant case, the respondent/ landlady has not proved her bona fide at all. In the year 2003, first RCOP was filed by the tenant in RCOP. No. 508 of 2003 for depositing the rents under Section 8 (5) of the Act, since there was denial to receive the rent on the part of the landlady. The said petition was dismissed. Therefrom, an appeal in RCA. No. 1381 of 2003 was also failed, which culminated in filing civil Revision Petition in CRP. No. 1862 of 2004. It is alleged that even on this date the tenant has been continuing to deposit the rent in Court. While the matter stood thus, the landlady filed RCOP. No. 2150 of 2003 on the ground of wilful default and also for demolition and reconstruction. Pending the same she filed an application under Section 11 (4) of the Act for depositing the rental arrears and that application was dismissed. The appeal therefrom was also dismissed and the CRP therefrom, is pending in this Court. It is pertinent to point out that the said RCOP on both the grounds is pending even today before the Rent Controller. The landlady again filed RCOP. No. 954 of 2004 on the ground of subletting and damages. This application was dismissed. Thereafter rca. No. 171 of 2005 was filed and it was also dismissed. It has become final since no challenge was made therefrom. RCOP. No. 1060 of 2005 was filed on the ground of change of user. The said RCOP was also dismissed. There was no appeal therefrom. Thereafter, RCOP. No. 2215 of 2004 was filed for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The said application having been allowed and also the Appellate forum having confirmed it, this revision has arisen. From the commencement of the proceedings till this date, there have been payments on rents by way of deposit and they have been given effect to. It is further to be pointed out that the earlier petition filed on two grounds viz. , wilful default and demolition and reconstruction is pending. There is another application on the same ground and it would indicate that there was thorough lack of bona fide. Now she was having sufficient funds and the building is old. The important criterion is whether the building is required for immediate demolition since bona fide has not been established. What is the main factor that has to be taken into consideration is that the petition filed under section 14 (1) (b) of the Act should have been dismissed by both the authorities below, but not done so. Hence, the order of the authorities below have got to be set aside.