S P SABURA BEGUM Vs. M K THANGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord who succeeded before the Rent Controller and failed before the appellate authority has filed the above revision petition. THE petitioner/ landlord filed apetition in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum- District Munsif of Periyakulam under Secs. 14(1)(b) and 14(2)(b)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 23 of 1973 on the ground that the building is more than 60 years old and she has decided to demolish the entire building, namely, Door Nos.98, 99 and 100, 18th Road, Periyakulam. She has also stated that she was taking steps to get licence and plan from the municipality for the proposed demolition and reconstruction and she has sufficient means to carry out the demolition and reconstruction. In compliance with Sec. 14(2) of the Act she gave undertaking to commence the demolition not later than one month and complete it within three months. In spite of the notices the tenant did not vacate the building. So, she filed the said petition. THE tenant filed a counter stating that he had been running his saloon for the past more than 30 years and if he is evicted from the building there is no other building to run his profession and thereby he would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. He has denied the fact that the building is 60 years old. He has further stated that it is a pucca building and there is no need to demolish the entire structure and to erect a new building. At the instance of the tenant, a Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner after due inspection of the building filed his report, which was marked as Ex.C-1. In his report, the advocate- Commissioner has stated that the building has some cracks. THE landlord examined herself as P.W. 1 and the tenant examined himself as R.W. 1. THE Rent Controller after due consideration of the oral documentary evidence found that the intention of the landlord to demolish the building in question is a bona fide one and on that basis the Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction. Aggrieved against this, the tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 13 of 1990 on the file of the appellate authority, Sub Judge, Periyakulam. THE appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller oM/s.P.Orr and Sons (P) Limited v. M/s.Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, 1990 2 LW 547 authority held that the building in question is not in dilapidated or dangerous condition and so the petition filed under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act cannot be ordered. On that ground, the appellate authority allowed the appeal. Against that judgment the present revision petition is filed by the landlord.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has proceeded with the case applying incorrect test that the petition under Sec. 14(1)(b) can be ordered only on the ground that the building should be in a dilapidated or dangerous condition. He further submitted that even in the decision rendered in M/s.P. Orr and Sons (P) Limited v. M/s.Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, (1990)2 L. W. 547, the age and condition of the build- ing is one of the criteria to be taken while disposing of the petition filed under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited decisions VijS.Thangaswamy v. R.Vinayakamurthy, 1996 2 CTC 105

(3.) THE appellate authority has not considered any other factor except applying the decision in M/s.P.Orr and Sons (P) Limited v. M/s.Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited. (1990)2 L.W. 547. THE appellate authority has not understood the scope of that judgment. Even in that judgment the Supreme Court has held that the condition of the building need not have deteriorated to the extent of its being in danger of crumbling down, but it should indicate the bona fide requirement for the timely, genuine and direct purpose of demolition and reconstruction. THE recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Singh, etc. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996)2 C.T.C. 586, the Supreme Court has held that it is difficult to accept the stand of the appellant (tenants) that the building must be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human habitation for granting permission under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Act. THE judgment reported in S.Thangaswamy v. R.Vinayakamurthy, (1996)2 C.T.C. 105, is also on the same line. In the decision reported in Venugopal and others v. Fathima Beevi and another, (1966)2 L.W. 772, it is held that if the intention of the landlord is proved to be genuine and not spurious and suspicious, the landlord would be entitled to obtain an order for eviction under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Act whether or not the condition of the building is such as to require immediate demolition, the age and dilapidated condition of the building not being sine qua non for such eviction. THE said judgment will directly apply to the facts of the present case. I find from the oral and documentary evidence let in the case that the requirement of the landlord is a bona fide one. THE learned counsel for the respon- dent is not able to persuade me to take different view. So, I have no hesitation in holding that the appellate authority is not correct in allowing the appeal, on the basis of the physical condition of the building alone. Even then, the report of the Advocate- Commissioner will reveal that there are some cracks in the building. For the abovesaid reasons, I set aside the order of the appellate authority and restore the order of the eviction passed by the Rent Controller.