ROOKSHANA NAZIR Vs. U M D SHAUKATHULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these revisions, the respondents are the owners of the petition mentioned building and the petitioners are the tenants. The respondents/landlords filed the respective petitions for eviction against all these petitioners/tenants under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the ground that the building in question is situated in a highly commercial locality, that the age of the building is more than 70 years and it has outlived its age, that the building is structurally unsound and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction and that they have decided to demolish the existing building and construct a shopping-cum- commercial complex using the latest technology, by which the building will yield very good returns, not less than five times of the present rent. With respect to the capacity to reconstruct the building it is stated by the respondents that they are possessing necessary means to carry out the same. It is also stated that they are preparing necessary plan for obtaining sanction from the concerned authorities.

(2.) THE respective petitioners/tenants resisted the eviction petitions mainly on the ground that the building is not in dilapidated condition, that the respondents are not having sufficient means for reconstruction and that there is no bonafide intention to demolish the petition mentioned building, and the eviction petitions have been filed only to get rid of the tenants. Engineers were appointed on the side of the landlords and also on the side of the tenants. THE respective parties adduced oral evidence and filed documents in support of their cases. Before the learned Rent Controller xii Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras , the landlords produced Ex. P-1 the permission given by the Corporation to demolish the building. To establish the means, the landlords produced documents marked as Exs. P7, P8, P-19 series, P-20 and P-32 to show the deposit in the banks. To establish the availability of the properties, the landlords filed exs. P-10 to P-14, P-21 to P-23, P-25, P-27 and P-30. THE landlords also produced Ex. P-9 to prove that they are having a policy of life insurance for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000. On the basis of those documents and evidence available on record, the Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the building requires demolition and reconstruction and the landlords are capable of gathering means for the purpose of reconstruction and so the intention to demolish and reconstruct the building is nothing but bonafide one. Aggrieved, the petitioners/tenants filed the respective appeals before the learned appellate Authority. THE Appellate Authority/iv Judge, Court of Small Causes, madras also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller, dismissed the appeals. Still aggrieved, the tenants have filed the above revisions.

(3.) MR. R. Krishnamoorthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords has submitted that though in the petition it is specifically stated that the age of the building in question is 70, there is no acceptable evidence on the side of the tenants. With respect to the means, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the abovesaid documents in support of his submission that the landlords are having sufficient means to reconstruct the building. He has further relied on the Ex. P-1 under which the landlords have obtained permission for demolition of the building. The learned senior Counsel has submitted that the respondents/landlords have explained as to why they have not obtained sanctioned plan. He has relied on the evidence of p. W. 2 on that aspect. Relying on the counters filed in the fair rent proceedings, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the tenants themselves admitted that the building is in dilapidated condition and so the admission of the opposite parties to test the evidence, according to him, the landlords, have established their requirement under Section 14 (1) (b) of the said Act, including the bona fide intention, which has been accepted by the authorities below. Relying on the decisions with respect to the scope of section 25 of the said Act, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that this court may not interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below with respect to the issue involved.