R RAJENDRAN Vs. E M KUTHURATHULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/landlord is the revision petitioner. He filed a petition under Sections 14(1)(b) and 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

(2.) THE petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300 and after purchase by the respondent, the petitioner attorned tenancy in favour of the petitioner. THE petitioner is carrying on jewellery business in a rental shop in Door No. 359, Bazaar Street, Salem 1. THE petitioner purchased the property for the purpose of carrying on his own business. THE petitioner says that the building is more than 60 years old and he has decided to demolish it and reconstruct a new building with two floors before the occupy the same for his own use to carry on his jewellery business. THE petition mentioned building is situated in the centre of Salem town, where there are number of jewellery shops. THE petitioner further contends that if the building is demolished and reconstructed with two floors, the petitioner will get monthly income of not less than Rs. 3, 000. THE petitioner also obtained building licence from the Municipality. THE petitioner contends that he bona fidely requires the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and also for his own use.

(3.) THE learned appellate authority has negatived the claim of the landlord. THE learned Rent Controller has found that a reading of the petition averments would reveal that the petitioner requires the petition mentioned building for running his jewellery business and to demolish the existing building and reconstruct a new building in the same place and it is sought to be demolished not only for the reasons of the petitioner's requirement of the building for his own business but also for the reason that the building is old and for getting more income by way of rent. THE appellate Court has taken the view that though the learned Rent Controller has decided the application first under Sections 10 (3)(a)(iii) and then 14(1)(b), the appellate Court is of the view that having regard to the contention raised in the petition, the requirement of the petitioner under Section 10(3)(a) (iii) has to be decided subject to the result of the case of bona fide requirement under section 14(1)(b) and it has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1992 (2) Law Weekly, 547. It is settled law that the bona fide requirement as defined under Section 14(1)(b) is not the requirement of the petitioner but the requirement emanates only from the building. THE appellate authority has found that there is no professional evidence such as the Engineers report about the aspect whether the building requires demolition and reconstruction, even though in the petition it is stated to be 60 years old, and it is not stated to be in a condition which requires demolition and reconstruction. So the appellate authority has found that as the claim under Section 14(1)(b) is not bona fide and as the building in question can be occupied by the petitioner for running his jewellery shop only after demolition and reconstruction after making it fit for running the jewellery shop, the requirement of the petitioner for demolition and reconstruction and for his own use is not bona fide.