T HIMMATLAL Vs. S BALAKRISHNA JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who failed before both the authorities below has filed this revision petition challenging the order for eviction passed under S. 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

(2.) IT is urged on behalf of the tenants that the building in question is a new building having been constructed in 1978. Reliance is placed upon the deposition of P. W. I to the effect that he constructed the first floor in 1978. IT is argued that if the building had been in a dilapidated condition as alleged in the petition for eviction, the landlord would not have constructed the first floor. IT is seen from the evidence of P. W. 1 that he had construction with asbestos sheets. IT is seen from the report of the advocate commissioner, the evidence of C. W. 1 and C. W. 2 and also the evidence of R. W. 3, an engineer examined by the tenants that the putting of two rooms in the first floor is asbestos sheet and one room is of tiles. IT cannot be inferred from the fact that a temporary construction has been effected in the first floor in 1978 that the ground floor is in a very strong condition. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the building was in existence even at the time. IT is the estimate of C. W. 1 and C. W. 2 that the building is about 70 years old. On the side of the tenants, RWS has given a report and also given evidence that the building is about 50 to 60 years old. Even assuming that the building is only about 50 years old, that will not mean that the building is in a very strong condition, hence the contention that the building is of a recent construction has to fail.

(3.) THE fifth contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord version that he is earning about Rs. 20,000 per annum by running a provision store is not substantiated by sufficient evidence. According to learned counsel, there should be a licence for running a provision store and such a licence has not been produced by the landlord. Actually, the landlord has given evidence to the effect that he is doing business as a broker of precious stones. He has not stated that he is conducting a provision stores. I do not think that it is relevant in this case as the landlord has filed sufficient documentary evidence to prove that he has got enough means to demolish the building and reconstruct the same. He has filed documents showing that he has fixed deposits in banks.