S SUBRAMANIAN Vs. S SRINIVASULU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions were arisen from the common order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority made in RCA. NOs. 142 and 143 of 2006.

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

(3.) ADVANCING his argument on behalf of the revision petitioner/tenant, learned counsel would submit that the petition filed for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction thoroughly lacks bonafide. The building was neither old nor the condition of the building was bad and the landlord has no financial source for putting up new construction. Even as per his evidence, except this property, he did not possess any property at all. He has an intention to construct a new building, is nothing but an invention for the purpose of getting an order of eviction. He has also filed a petition for fixation of fair rent. The authorities below have not adverted the fact that the landlord did not have financial means which lacks bonafide requirement of the building in question and hence all the above factors are necessary for passing an order of eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. It is pertinent to point out that a petition for fixation of fair rent was filed on 29. 12. 2004, while the eviction petition was filed on 10. 1. 2005. This would be indicative of the fact that the respondent/landlord had the real intention of evicting the tenant because there was no need for filing an application for fixation of fair rent i. e. enhancement of rent and thus it is clear that he had no intention to make a new construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further add that in so far as the fixation of fair rent was concerned, originally the rent was fixed at Rs. 1,200/-p. m. and subsequently it was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 3,673/- p. m. by the Rent Controller. Even without considering the factual positions under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu (Buildings and Rent Control) Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority enhanced the rent and fixed at Rs. 5,265/-p. m. , Thus, it was defective and not in accordance with law and hence both the orders have got to be set aside.