S M ISPAHANI Vs. HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlords are the revision petitioners. THEy sought the eviction of the respondent/tenant under Section 14 (l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for demolition and reconstruction.

(2.) THE contents of the petition are as follows:

(3.) MR.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for MR. Balachander for revision petitioners, submitted that the property in question is a very substantial property, that the petitioners are entitled to utilise the property for better returns, that the case of the respondent that there are no multi-storeyed buildings around the petition premises is not true, that the respondent has not established that there is some oblique motive for seeking the eviction of the respondent, and that plan and permit are not immediately necessary for the purpose of seeking eviction under Section 14(1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to The Act). The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the case under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Act had been clearly made out and the petitioners are entitled to an order of eviction. He also relied on the following decisions in support of his submissions (1) Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, 1996 (II) CTC 586 : 1996 (6) SCC 475. (2) A. Lakshmanan v. Kanniammal @ Pattammal, 1995 (1) L.W. 632. (3) S.P. Sabura Begum v. M.K. Thangavelu, 1997 (I) CTC 95 (4) National Studios Etc., v. Prema Kalyanasun-daram, 1997 (3) LW 269 (5) Md. Gani v. S. Rathanavel, 1994 (2) LW 472 and (6) A.S. ShaikFathima v. Omer Cloth Strores, 1985 (98) LW 311.