S SARASWATHIAMMAL Vs. R S MALLIKARJUN RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of the tenant have filed the above revision challenging the order of eviction. One Packialakshmiammal filed r. C. O. P. No. 13 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), madurai Taluk, Madurai to direct the tenant to deliver possession of the premises bearing Door No. 38 Pappankinatru Lane , Madurai Town. This eviction petition was filed on the ground that the demised premises is a very old building and it has only a light roofing sheets for the roof. She has got three sons and they intended to divide the properties by putting up additional constructions after demolition. It is also stated in that petition that they have submitted a plan and estimate for demolition and reconstruction. On the basis of the said averments the landlady has submitted that she requires the premises for immediate demolition and reconstruction and her intention is a bona fide one. Objecting this petition, the petitioner/ tenant filed a statement of objections stating that the building is not old and it is in good condition and the intention to demolish and reconstruct the same is not a bona fide one. THE Rent Controller after considering the oral and documentary evidence found that the requirement of the petition mentioned building for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. . Aggrieved against that finding, the tenant filed R. C. A. No. 215 of 1981. THE appellate authority in his order dated 30. 3. 1982 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent controller. THE landlady filed C. R. P. No. 1656 of 1983 before this Court. This court in its order dated 4. 3. 1986 remanded the matter with the following observations: ' ; THE appellate authority found that in Ex. A-1 the plan, there is no indication that the building has to be demolished and a new building has to be built in the site, but that only the roof has to be replaced by a terrace and that therefore the petition would not lie under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. But the evidence of P. W. I the landlord, shows that a bathroom and a lavatory have to be constructed in the portion now in occupation of the tenant and that the entire portion has to be divided into two equal parts for the occupation of the two sons of the landlord. THEre is no evidence also in this case whether the building is required for immediate purpose of demolition. Further, there is no evidence as to whether the petition schedule property which bears Door No. 4 is alone so old as to require immediate demolition even though in the counter the tenant has expressly stated mat the allegation that the building is old, is not true. From the plan alone submitted in this case, the Appellate Authority cannot come to the conclusion mat the petition under Sec. 14 (1) (b) will not lie.' ; After remand, the landlady filed two documents, Exs. A-8 and A-9 to show the age of the building. Pending appeal the landlady and tenant died and the respondents and petitioners are their respective Legal Representatives. THE appellate Authority in this order dated 23. 3. 1992 confirmed the order of the Rent Controller, ordering eviction.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner/ tenant submitted that the petition under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act cannot be maintained as the landlady wants only replacement of the damaged roofing and the appellate authority has not applied his mind with respect to para 5 of the remand order of this Court. He further submitted that the court has misconstrued Ex. A-3 and applied the substance of the document against his case. THE learned' ; counsel for the respondents/ landlady has submitted that it is not correct to state that the landlady is going to replace only the roofing, but as deposed by p. W. I, after demolition, the landlady is going to construct a pucca building. Ex. A-1 plan will clearly prove the same. Exs. A-8 and A-9 sale deeds will clearly prove the age of the building and the tenant has not examined any witness to discharge his burden regarding the condition of the building. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the respondent/ landlady cited number of decisions.

(3.) LOOKED at from any point of view the landlady has proved her bona fide intention to demolish the building for reconstruction. It cannot be said that after remand the appellate authority has decided the case only on the basis of the plan. The oral and other documentary evidence had been taken into consideration to assess the intention of the landlady. The authorities below have applied their mind regarding the condition of the building and other relevant factors and have correctly come to the conclusion that the building requires demolition and reconstruction and the intention of the landlady is bona fide. I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the orders passed by the authorities below and as such the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.