GOMATHIAMMAL Vs. M SHANMUGA VELAYUTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 26.2.1996 made in RCA No. 21 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Principal Sub Judge, Snvilliputhur, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 4.5.1993 made in RCOP No. 9 of 1991 by the Rent Controller and the Court of District Munsif Srivilliputhur.

(2.) THE original petition before the Rent Controller has been filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on ground of demolition and reconstruction of the premises contending thereby (i) that the property which is the subject matter of the tenancy, fell to the share of the landlord in a family partition which is of two items, one bearing door No. 15 comprising of Ambika Rice Mill and the second item bearing door No. 16 c omprising of a house and the adjoining zinc sheet building; (ii) that the said buildings were leased out in favour of the father-in-law of the respondent during his life time on a oral agreement; (iii) that the petitioner's father Muthiah Chettiar constructed the said rice mill at his own cost; (iv) that it is the respondent, who is the tenant of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 150; (v) that the buildings have become old by 60 years and the walls of the building bearing door No. 16 have been constructed by mud; (vi) that the landlord wants to demolish both the buildings and to reconstruct them for which he had obtained the plan approval from the Municipality; (vii) that he has got the financial stability to reconstruct the building and in fact he has given an undertaking to that effect; (viii) that the petitioner/landlord sent a notice dated 24.12.1990 to the respondent in this regard for which he has replied with false averments. Hence, the petition praying to evict the respondent from the premises for the above reasons.

(3.) WITH the above evidence placed on record, the Rent Controller having discussed the merits of the case remarking that there is no dispute regarding the tenancy and from the evidence, it comes to be known that the tenancy started 60 years back and the premises fell to the share of the petitioner in the year 1959 in the family partition; that the respondent and his predecessors are the tenants of the buildings for the last 6 years; that the petitioner would contend that the age of the building is over 60 years and the walls have been constructed by unburnt bricks and mud and the buildings are in a highly dilapidated condition and they have to be demolished with immediate effects and that the petitioner has also obtained necessary permission from the Municipality for reconstruction of the building and he has also made arrangements for the expenses for such reconstruction, as it comes to be seen from Ex.P.3.