PAPPU AMMAL Vs. LAB CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these revisions, the landlady is the petitioner. The matters arise out of rent control petitions filed by the landlady under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and. Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred-to as the-Act ). H. R. G. No. 2270 of 1971 wag filed by the landlady-against Messrs. Lab chemicals, the respondent in C. R. P. No. 439 of 1975. H. R. C. No. 2271 of 1971 was filed by the landlady against P. S. Palani Chetti respondent in C. R. P. No. 440 of 1975. Both were entertained by the Eighth Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller), Madras. According to the petitioner she required the premises in the occupation of the respective tenants for the immediate purpose of demolishing the same and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. The case of the petitioner as could be gathered from the petitions filed before the rent Controller, was that her husband was doing business in Ceylon for some years there have been threats against the Indian merchants in that country to leave; her husband was able to prolong his stay there till recently when he had to migrate to India once for all in May 1971; her husband, after coming to india, has made all preparations to start a business of his own at Madras for the benefit of the family, but for want of a business place for carrying on the business exclusively, the family is handicapped; the petition building is the only non-residential building belonging to them in Madras, that she has also filed separate petitions for eviction of the tenants under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the act; the shops in the occupation of the tenants are old and narrow and require to be reconstructed. The landlady gave the requisite under-taking to commence the work of demolition of the building, not later than one month and to complete the same before the expiry of the three months from the date possession is recovered. The respondents-tenants filed their counters. The main contentions, as could be gathered from their counters, are that the landlady has been demanding enhanced rent; she has no means to demolish and reconstruct the building; the building is not old and does not require any demolition; that the landlady hag filed another petition for their eviction on the ground of requirement of the building for business purposes and she is not motivated by bona fides in filing the petitions for eviction. The Rent Controller who heard the petitions came to the conclusion that the landlady is not motivated by bona fides and in that view, dismissed her petitions on 30-7-1973. Aggrieved thereby the landlady filed H. R. A. No. 534 of 1973 against H. R. C. No. 2270 of. 1971 and H. R. A. No. 535 of 1973 against H. R. C. No. 2271 of 1971. They were heard and disposed of by the Appellate Authority (Third Judge, Court of Small causes, Madras) by a common judgment dated 7-10-1974. Appellate Authority concurred with the Rent Controller that the landlady lacked bona fides and dismissed the appeals, preferred by the landlady. The present revisions are directed against the order of the Appellate authority.

(2.) THE main question that comes up for consideration in both these revisions is as to whether the courts below applied the correct principles with reference to the assessment of bona fides under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act. The question of bona fides has passed through many facets of consideration by judicial precedents. It will be pertinent to refer to some of them so as to deduce the correct principle that should be applied in consideration of this question, viz. 'bona fides' of the landlord for seeking eviction under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act. In its wisdom, the Legislature was not content to lay down that the landlord can recover possession from the tenant on the simple ground that he required the premises for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and putting a new building on the site. The expression 'bona fide' has been consciously incorporated so as to enjoin a duty upon the Courts to consider as to whether the requirement of the landlord has got the support of his bona fides. Without this element being present and without the consideration of this element, it will not be easy for the landlord to apply for eviction under this provision, viz. , section 14 (1) (b) of the Act.

(3.) IN Mehsin Bhai v. Hale and Co. , Madras, (1964) 77 Mad LW 194, Ananthanarayahan j. while considering the question of 'bona fide' observed -