B PARAS DEVI Vs. VIJAYA AUTO PARTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above civil revision petition by the landlord is directed against the order of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Appellate Authority) in R. C. A. No. 547 of 1985, reversing the order of eviction passed by the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Rent Controller) in r. C. O. P. No. 3714 of 1983 under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nad u Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows: THE proceedings relate to four shops situate in door No. 99, Waltax Road, park town, Madras. THE petitioner as landlady filed the application under Section 14 (1 ) (b) of the Act, against the respondent and three other tenants, each of whom was occupying one shop in the above door Number. Eviction was sought on the ground that the building was more than 70 years old and had developed cracks in many places and the walls were in a dangerous condition. THE structure was tiled and the entire building was in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction. Two of the tenants agreed to vacate the premises and had, in fact, vacated. One of the tenants, though initially had filed a counter did not press the same and ultimately vacated the premises. THE present respondent alone who is in possession of one shop resisted the landlady's action for eviction. In his counter, the respondent alleged that the age of the building was exaggerated and at any rate the petitioner was put to strict proof that the building was more than 70 years old and that the building was at the most aged only 40 years and was in a sound condition and did not require demolition. It was not admitted that the building was a tiled structure. THE request for demolition and reconstruction was not bona fide since an earlier petition seeking eviction of the respondent on the group of sub-letting had been unsuccessful, the present petition had been filed with ulterior motive.

(3.) PER contra: Thiru S. C. Shah , learned counsel for the, respondent, objected to the receipt of additional evidence produced by the petitioner on the ground that if the same was permitted, the respondent should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness with reference to the above document and that the matter should then be remitted to the court below for providing him with the above opportunity. Learned counsel also submitted that failure to produce the sanctioned plan for the proposed reconstruction would be a very relevant circumstance indicating lack of bona fides of the requirement and that, therefore, the order of the learned Appellate Authority reversing the order of eviction on the above ground was correct and should be upheld.