P SHANTHILAL Vs. N JANAKIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenants are the revision petitioners before this Court. The landlord/respondent filed a petiton for eviction against the tenants/petitioners under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in short, "the Act", on the file of the Rent Controller, for demolition and reconstruction, which was ordered. The said order was challenged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the same was confirmed. The finding of the Court below has been assailed by the tenants, on the ground that the prayer sought for in the eviction petition is only for demolition of first floor, second floor and third floor of the building, and not the ground floor; the plan obtained from the local authority is only for alteration and renovation of first floor, second floor and third floor, and not for demolition and reconstruction; the landlord has no intention to demolish and reconstruct the ground floor, which is in their occupation; hence, the ground floor portion need not be vacated; even assuming that the landlord requires the building for alteration of first floor, second floor and third floor, he should have filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (a), and, therefore, the petition filed under Section 14 (1) (b) is not maintainable; without evicting the tenants in the third floor, the claim made by the respondent/landlord is not bona fide; and, therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.

(2.) The respondent/landlord is the owner of the petition premises. Admittedly, there was a fire accident in the first floor portion of the building. Pursuant to the fire accident, an F.I.R. was lodged and it was found that the building was in weak condition. Thereafter, the landlord obtained permission from Coimbatore Municipal Corporation for demolition and reconstruction of the building and filed a petition for eviction against the revision petitioners, who are in occupation of the ground floor.

(3.) To prove his case, the landlord got examined himself as P.W.1; his son as P.W.2; a Civil Engineer as P.W.3; and the tenant in the third floor as P.W.4. The landlord has clearly let in evidence, that, by virtue of the fire accident, the entire first floor portion is damaged beyond repair and the roof of the ground floor is in a dilapidated condition and would collapse at any time. P.W.2 would also depose in the same lines as that of P.W.1, and prove the means, by producing the bank statements. P.W.3, Civil Engineer, would clearly depose about the strength and physical features of the building, which is likely to be collapsed at any time. P.W.4, the tenant in occupation of the third floor portion, would depose about the factum of stability of the building as well as his willingness to deliver the vacant portion at any time, for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.