R DAYANANDA GUPTA Vs. LAKSHMI VENKATADRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) to set aside the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in R.C.A.No.20 of 2003 dated 06.01.2005 in confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, passed in R.C.O.P.No.70 of 2001, dated 04.07.2003 and allow the civil revision petition.

(2.) IN the petition for eviction, the landlord has alleged as follows:-2.1.The respondent is tenant under the petitioner. The demised premises was a larger extent which originally belonged to one Urmilaben. She sold the western portion to the petitioner and eastern portion to the respondent. The respondent is none other than the petitioner's husband's younger brother. Since the petitioner was not in station, it was leased out to the respondent for a sum of Rs.250/- as monthly rent. Subsequently, it became Rs.650/- per month. Both the parties purchased properties under separate sale deeds. The respondent is running a business of selling home appliances under the name and style of -M/s.Sivaram Traders- in the demised premises. The petitioner's husband got retirement on superannuation and has come down to Pondicherry to settle. He died in the year 1994. After his death, the petitioner has been persuading the respondent to deliver the demised premises which is highly dilapidated and decayed and the roofing is likely to collapse at any moment. It is more than 100 years old requiring demolition and reconstruction.2. 2. The petitioner also intends to commence a business in the demised premises after demolition. Several demands made by her in person through mediators for delivery of property has ended in vain. Hence, on 01.09.2001, a Lawyer's notice was issued to the respondent. The petitioner has got approved plan for reconstruction by the Town Planning Authorities. She has got adequate resources for putting up construction. The respondent gave an evasive reply on 19.09.2001. Hence, the eviction may be ordered.

(3.) EVEN though it is disputed by the appellant in his counter that himself and his brother Venkatadri purchased the properties jointly, the fact remains that two separate sale deeds were executed by Urmilaben with regard to the western and eastern portions of the properties as evident from P.1, the sale deed, dated 10.03.1977. It is in favour of this respondent. In the said deed, the property conveyed was described within specific boundaries and there is no mention as to the joint purchase. The respondent says that she is bona fide requiring the building for demolition and reconstruction since it is old.