N. JANAKI AND ANR. Vs. S. JAYALATCHUMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant who faced with eviction by the Appellate Authority filed the above revision. The landlady filed Petitions in R.CO.P.Nos. 284 and 285 of 1984 on the file of Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli for eviction under Ss. 10(2)(ii), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the landlady, the tenant has not paid the rent for two months namely, May and June, 1984 and such a default is wilful. With respect to the ground of owners occupation she has stated in the petition that they are in occupation of a rented premises and running a Coffee Hotel. To have the business in the premises in question, they require the same. With respect to the ground of demolition and reconstruction, it is the case of the landlady that the municipality gave a notice on 17.3.1984 asking the landlady to demolish the building in question that it was in a very dangerous condition. The landlady has stated that she requires the premises for immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction by creating a new terraced building by having all modern facilities in order to suit her convenience in the vacant site. According to her, she has got sufficient funds for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The tenants contested the petition by filing a counter. The Rent Controller in his order dated 4.11.1991 dismissed the petition. It is relevant to mention here that with respect to wilful default, the landlady has not pressed the said issue. Aggrieved against the said order the landlady filed an appeal in R.C.A.Nos. 4 and 5 of 1992 on the file of Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli. The Appellate Authority after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the appeals on both the grounds in his order dated 13.12.1993.

(2.) The landlady sought for eviction on the ground of owners occupation to run a Coffee Hotel which is carried on by her in a rented building which is situated just opposite to the premises in question. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing has been stated in the petition as to why the landlady wants to shift the hotel to the premises in question. The Rent Controller has found that though the municipality has given a notice for increased rent, no notice was issued for eviction. But the Appellate Authority only on the basis of the said notice issued by the municipality demanding enhanced rent, allowed the appeal. The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the landlady has not given that reason in the petition regarding the necessity to shift the shop. It is well -settled that for asking for the premises for owner's occupation, mere proving ingredients of the Sec. is not enough but more than that the bona fide intention should be proved. In this case, though the landlady has established the ingredients of the section, there is nothing on record to show that the intention of the landlady is a bona fide one. In the the absence of such proof, the Appellate Authority is not correct in allowing the appeal on that ground.

(3.) With respect to the ground of demolition and reconstruction, it is the case of the landlady that the municipality has issued notice on 17.3.1984 to her. That is as marked as Ex.A -7. Though the Rent Controller has not accepted her evidence with respect to the condition of building, the Appellate Authority relied on the said document Ex.A -7 to come to a conclusion that the building is in a dilapidated condition. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the reply notice, it is specifically stated that the said notice Ex.A -7 was issued at the instance of the landlady for the purpose of filing the petition. But the said contention has not been established before the authorities.