LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-338

PARASMAL PROP MEHTA STORES Vs. R MOHAN

Decided On January 01, 2007
PARASMAL, PROP. MEHTA STORES Appellant
V/S
R. MOHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authorities ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction (under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act), the Tenants have preferred these Revision Petitions.

(2.) SINCE both Revision Petitions arise out of common order and same set of facts are relevant for both the Revision Petitions, both Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(3.) ASSAILING the concurrent findings of the authorities below, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner Mr. R. Thiyagarajan (in C.R.P.No.61 of 2005) has contended that the requirement is not bonafide and the age and condition of the building are not substantiated. Submitting that the Respondent/Landlord is a practising Advocate having residential house at T.Nagar, Chennai, it was contended that there was no bonafide requirement. Regarding the building plans and licence fee paid, learned counsel urged that the period of building plan has already expired and no material has been produced showing its renewal. It was also urged that mere deposit of amount in the bank would not be sufficient. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in Vairamani Ammal ..Vs.. Kalyana Sundaram and another (2004 (I) M.L.J. 681) and Iqbal Abdul Kareem by his Power of Attorney Salaiman Abdul Kareem ..Vs.. Chandrasekaran (2005 (4) M.L.J. 569).