M. KANAKAVEL PILLAI BY POWER AGENT M. SELLAIYAH PILLAI Vs. DRUGS AND CHEMICALS, KUMBAKONOM BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, T. RAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is the petitioner. An application was filed by him under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, as amended by Act XXIII of 1973, hereinafter called the Act, praying for an order of eviction against the respondent and others. The property in question bearing door No. 33 in T.S.R. Big Street, Kumbakonam town, was purchased by the petitioner under two said deeds dated 5th January, 1975 and 15th January, 1975. Even at the time when the property was purchased, the respondent and others were in occupation as tenants under a tenancy agreement with the vendors of the petitioner. After the purchase by the petitioner, the respondent and others who have been carrying on business in the sale of drugs and medicines had also attorned. The petitioner claimed that he requires the building for his own use and occupation and to start a business and only for this purpose, according to him, he had invested huge amounts in the purchase of the building. The petitioner claimed that he has no other building of his own fit for conducting the business and further stated that he was having ready cash for getting the stock and machineries also for his business at Kumbakonam. The petitioner further claimed that the building is an old one and that he wants to demolish and reconstruct the same. An undertaking to commence the demolition work and also to complete the construction within the time prescribed in the Act was also given by the petitioner. A notice was also issued on 11th June, 1975, by the petitioner to the respondent and others requesting them to vacate the property and surrender possession which was not acceded to by the respondent. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed the application for eviction.

(2.) The first respondent in his counter stated that he had nothing to do with the drugs and chemicals and that he has been unnecessarily impleaded in the petition. The second respondent did not file any counter. The third respondent who is the only contesting respondent now, contested the application on the ground that the petitioner is in Kulalumpur and the requirement of the premises by the petitioner is not bona fide. A further plea was also taken that a mere intention on the part of the petitioner to start the business cannot be a ground for seeking an order of eviction against the respondent. The requirement of the premises in question for demolition and reconstruction was denied, as according to the respondent, the building is in a very good condition and it requires no demolition or reconstruction. An objection was also raised with reference to the maintainability of the application for eviction at the instance of the power of attorney agent of the petitioner. It was also contended that in the absence of a valid notice to quit, the application for eviction is not maintainable.

(3.) The learned Rent Controller, District Munsif, Kumbakonam, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the petitioner required the building bona fide for his own use and occupation and that he wanted to conduct his own business in the property in the occupation of the respondent. It was also further found that no notice to quit was necessary in respect of proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act. The objection of the respondent as regards the maintainability of the application was also negatived. The requirement of the petitioner for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction in order to start a new business in the property in question was also held to be made out. On the above findings, the learned Rent Controller directed eviction of the respondent from the premises in question granting two months time to vacate the same. Aggrieved by that, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 32 of 1977 before the Appellate Authority. Sub -Court, Kumbakonam. The Appellate Authority held that the petitioner does not require the petition -premises for his own occupation and that the requirement is not bona fide as well. The Appellate Authority concurred with the con -elusions of the learned Rent Controller that no notice of termination is necessary and that the petition by the power of attorney agent of the petitioner is maintainable. Considering the nature of the alterations proposed to be effected by the petitioner in the premises in question, the Appellate Authority concluded basing itself on the plan that what was contemplated by the petitioner was a mere change of roofing and that would not fall within Section 14(1) (b) of the Act and therefore, held that the requirement of the premises by the petitioner for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. In the result, the Appellate Authority, differing from the conclusions of the learned Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for eviction filed by the petitioner.