C. SHANMUGHAVEL Vs. THE POST MASTER, WEST POST OFFICE REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, DINDIGUL DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which arises out of an application filed by him under Section 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1973. It is not in dispute that the building in question belongs to the petitioner and the West Post Office in Dindigul is situated in this building. This building was let out to the respondent for the purpose of keeping and running a post office therein. The petitioner stated that when he went to collect rent on 2nd August, 1974, he found that the building had been kept in a very bad condition with the flooring considerably damaged and the walls full of holes with bricks visible in several places. It has also further stated that cracks had developed in the ceiling and that the beam had become bent and the walls in most places had also become damaged. The petitioner therefore claimed that unless immediate, proper and effective repairs were carried out, the building was liable to be totally damaged and according to him those repairs, being of an extensive nature, cannot be carried out unless the tenant vacated the premises. The petitioner further gave an undertaking that he will carry out the necessary repairs and after the completion of the repairs, offer the building to the respondent for its re -occupation before the expiry of three months from the date of recovery of possession. It was under these circumstances that the application was filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE respondent contended that though it was incumbent on the petitioner to do the repairs, yet he had been evading to do so and that the building is in proper and good condition. The application for eviction in order to enable the petitioner to carry on the necessary repairs is not true, but was intended only to vacate the respondent. It was also the further case of the respondent that there was no necessity to vacate the post office for the purpose of doing the repairs as such repairs could be done without the post office being removed out of the premises.

(3.) ON these findings, the Appellate Authority dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.