SHARMA Vs. FENIVARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant in the appeal in M. A. No. 19 of 1986 on the file of the Appellate Authority. Pondicherry is the petitioner in this revision petition and the respondent is the landlady.

(2.) THE respondent/landlady represented by her power-of-Attorney Agent R. Ramadoss filed the petition in H. R. C. O. P. No. 124 of 1985 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif)Pondicherry for eviction of the petitioner/tenant under S. 14 (1) (b) of the pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which shall hereinafter be referred to as the Act on the ground of demolition and reconstruction on the following averments: According to her, the revision petitioner became a tenant in the year 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 and that the petition building is more than 50 years old. THE tenant had unauthorisedly installed shuttles and has been dumping raw materials thus weakening the floor and other parts of the old building. Further, he had unauthorisedly closed the front floor and also opened a passage by demolishing the side wall on the northern side. She wants to demolish the premises and reconstruct a building thereon. She has already applied to the Pondicherry Town Planning Authorities for sanction of the plan and permission was obtained from the said authorities as per the order dated 5-10-1984. She is possessed of necessary funds to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs in her account with United Commercial Bank, Pondicherry Main Branch for the purpose of construction.

(3.) IN answer to the said contentions: Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/landlady submitted that the earlier Petition was dismissed as the landlady was not able to attend the hearings. Even otherwise, the dismissal of the earlier petition is no bar for maintaining the present application since it was filed on a different ground. IN support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the decision of this court in Ramadas Kishanadas and others v. M. Varadaraja Pillai and others, 1973 t. L. N. J. 80 wherein it was held that since the Legislature intended to give all the benefits both the tenants and to landlords through the sections of the enactment, if a tenant or a landlord avails himself of certain provisions of this enactment, it will not preclude him on a future date from invoking the provisions of different sections of the enactment to got appropriate relief. Therefore, the mere fact that in an earlier petition the landlady failed to get an order of eviction does not mean that he is precluded from invoking the other other provisions of the Act on the principles contained in S. 19 of the Act. Further, it has to be noted that this objection was not taken before the learned rent Controller, but it was raised only before the appellate authority.