VENKADACHALAM Vs. MICHEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.0. The petitioner is tenant who is the respondent in R.C.O.P.NO.1 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Controller, Valliyoor. In the petition filed by the landlord, the following are stated:- 1.1. By means of a sale deed dated 14.03.1963, the property belonged to the father of this petitioner. It was leased out to the father of the respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The present rent is Rs.1,000/- and the same has to be paid on or before the 10th of every next English calendar month. The respondent used to get signature for the payment of rent then and there in a pass book retained by him. After the death of his father, the respondent has been continuing as tenant in the property. This petitioner after his father's demise has been collecting the rent from the respondent on behalf of the other co-sharers also.

(2.) IN view of the Tamil Nadu Lease and Rent Control Act (in short "the Act") since the petitioner has been collecting rent, he must be deemed to be the landlord. The petition scheduled property is a old one and the petitioner intends to demolish the same and reconstruct a new building in its place to augment his income. His requirement for demolition and reconstruction is a bona fide one. The petitioner has got sufficient means for new construction. Hence, the respondent has to be evicted. On 20.06.2001 and also on 24.06.2001, this petitioner demanded the respondent to evict the building. Hence, the petition has to be allowed. IN the counter filed by the respondent / tenant, it is alleged as follows:-

(3.) IT is not debatable that the petition mentioned property was taken on lease by the father of the petitioner from the father of the respondent and the present rent is Rs.1,000/- per mensem. The respondent requires the building for demolition and reconstruction on the ground that it is an old one and it has to be demolished. To show the condition of the building, he took out a commission from the Rent Controller. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the demised premises and filed a report with a plan by observing that some cracks are found on the inner walls of the building. The upper roof portion made up of tiles is found completely damaged and instead of tiled roof, presently coconut leaves have been laid, that a big crack was found on the southern wall and the upper portion of the wall was found in a damaged condition. IT is understood from the Advocate Commissioner's report that material portions of the building are not in good condition.