IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.10.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH C.R.P.NPD.No.1242 of 2004 B.Santhilal ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Krishnaveni 2.V.Devaki 3.S.Thyagarajan 4.S.Jayanthi 5.K.S.Selva Krishnan 6.K.S.Selvi ... Respondents PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against fair and final order passed by the I Addl. Sub- Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority of Erode) in R.C.A.No.6 of 2003 dated 18.02.2004 confirming the order of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif Court) Erode made in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 1999 dated 23.07.2003. For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.T.Muthumanickam O R D E R This revision has been preferred against the order passed by the lower Court in R.C.A.No.6 of 2003 dated 18.02.2004 confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Erode, in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 1999 dated 23.07.2003. 2.The case of the landlord as petitioner before the learned Rent Controller would be as follows:- The demised property is a non-residential premise and the landlord is the owner of the property. The said property and other properties comprised in single building are one foot lower than the road level and due to the said fact, the rain water stagnated within the premises and thereby there were so many cracks developed in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ building. The landlord's elder son had completed his studies and he has to start a business at the demised premises and therefore, the said premises is required for his own occupation. Originally the said premises was rented out to the tenant at Rs.75/- per month during the year 1975. Thereafter, the quantum of monthly was rent enhanced periodically and was fixed at Rs.600/- per month. The landlord also proposed to demolish the entire building and to re-construct the new building in the same place and the tenants have agreed for the same and required one month time for vacating the premises. After the lapse of one year, when the respondent approached the petitioner, he asked for further four months time to vacate. However, the tenant did not surrender the vacant possession to the respondent for demolition and re-construction of the said premises. But, the tenant resorted to file a suit for injunction and the landlord has also issued a notice of termination of the lease against the tenant. The landlord has given an undertaking that he would demolish and put up new constructions within a period of three months from the date of delivery of the said property. Therefore, the landlord as petitioner before the learned Rent Controller prays for vacating the tenant under Section 14(1)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and to pass necessary orders. 3. The case of the tenant as respondent before the learned Rent Controller would be as follows:- It is true that the rent was periodically enhanced from Rs.75/- per month to Rs.600/- per month in between parties. The landlord's plea for the computer business of his elder son is not true and the building was not one foot lower to the road level and it is also not true that the rain water stagnated in the said premises. The fact that the cracks have been developed in the building of the premises is also not correct. The tenant never agreed with the landlord to vacate the premises when the landlord asked for demolition and re-construction of the building. The demised building was constructed in the year 1964 and not in the year 1950. The landlord insisted the tenant to pay a sum of Rs.900/- per month on 24.10.1998 and since the tenant did not agree for the same, the landlord is trying to evict the tenant by taking coercive steps. Therefore, he filed a suit for permanent injunction from evicting him except through due process of law. The rent paid by the tenant was refused by the respondent and therefore, he has sent it through money order and the said money order was also refused. Therefore, the tenant has deposited the rent before the learned Rent Controller under Section 8 (5) of the said Act. The demised premises is located in a busy area which would have noise and heavy traffic and therefore, the computer classes cannot be conducted in the said premises. The requirement for own occupation and for demolition and re-construction are not sustainable and therefore, the petition has to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Rent Controller had conducted the enquiry by examining witnesses on either side and admitted documents and had come to the conclusion of ordering eviction against the tenant and granted 3 months time for vacating and handing over the possession to the landlord. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner/tenant has preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.6 of 2003 dated 18.02.2004 questioning the said order. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had heard the appeal and confirmed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The aggrieved tenant has preferred the revision before this Court against the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 5. Heard Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Muthumanickam, the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would submit in his argument that the respondent/landlord had failed to prove the bonafide requirements of the building for the grounds raised by him. He would further submit that the eviction proceedings have been commenced by the respondent only to enhance the rate of rent. He would further submit in his argument that his son has studied computer course and wants to do computer business in the said non- residential building is not sufficient ground to grant an order of eviction. He would also submit that the building is in a good condition and the respondent / landlord did not prove that the demised premise was required for immediate demolition and re- construction of the building by examining any one of the engineers. He would also submit that the respondent/landlord did not prove his capacity to raise funds for re-construction of the building and all these facts were not discussed by the Appellate Authority in its judgment. The respondent/landlord had filed the petition before the learned Rent Controller that the rent was sent through money order and therefore, there is no bona-fide on the part of the respondent/landlord in filing the application for eviction under the grounds of demolition and re-construction. He would, therefore, request the Court to allow the revision and thereby, to set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit in his argument that the respondent herein, as the petitioner before the learned rent controller, had examined PW2 to PW5 besides examining himself as PW1. The witnesses in support of his case and the Commissioner who investigated the property had also stated in his report that the property was aged more than 35 years and it was made up of mud and lime mortar and the basement of the building is about https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to fall down and it was in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, it required immediate demolition and re-construction. He would further submit in his argument that he had examined his son, who required the premises for doing his computer based business, as PW2 and therefore, the Rent Controller was pleased to accept his contention and accordingly, passed an order of eviction. He would also submit in his argument that the Rent Control Appellate Authority had applied the provisions of law and had come to a conclusion that the grounds raised in the petition was explained by Rent Control Appellate Authority, after it had discussed the evidence recorded before the Rent Controller and had accepted the decision reached by the lower Court for ordering eviction under Section 14(1) of the Act. He would, therefore, request the Court that there is no necessity for setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and accordingly, the revision may be dismissed. 8.I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent/landlord before the Rent Controller under various sections namely, 10(2)(1), 10(3)(a), and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. The learned Rent Controller has framed the points as to the demolition and re-construction and the requirements of premises for own occupation and did not give any finding regarding wilful default. The Appellate Authority also had discussed regarding the points rendered upon the landlords own occupation for the accommodation of his elder son's computer business and also for demolition and re-construction of new building in the said property. Therefore, this Court could see that the grounds raised before the Rent Controller under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act regarding willful default has not been pursued by the respondent/landlord. As regards the requirements of the premises for demolition and re-construction, similar rent control petitions were filed against the co-tenants of the petitioner under the same grounds for demolition and re-construction for own occupation were clubbed together and evidence was let in. The respondent/landlord has spoken as PW1 that he has required the said premises for immediate demolition and re-construction. The argument put forth by the petitioner was to the effect that the respondent/landlord has not projected the necessity of demolishing the said building by adducing evidence through engineer's report or through any expert's opinion. 9. Admittedly, a Commissioner was appointed by the Rent Controller and he inspected the said suit property and he noted the physical features of the entire property. The Commissioner's report would disclose that the said building has developed several cracks and the age of the building would be more than 35 years and the said premises is at the requirement of immediate demolition. The petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been filed in the year 2004 and it is pending for a longer period till 2010, at the stage of preferring revision before this Court. Now, the building can still be more older than at the time when the Commissioner inspected the said property. From the Commissioner's report coupled with the evidence of PW1, this Court could see that the building is an old building and it requires immediate demolition and re-construction. The consent of the petitioner is not at all essential for putting up new construction as he has given an undertaking to demolish the said building and put up new construction within a period of 3 months from the date of handing over possession of the premises. Apart from that the respondent's/landlord's son was examined as PW2. The said evidence of PW2 was also supported by the evidence of PW3. These circumstances would certainly go to show that the respondent/landlord required the premises for his own occupation for accommodating his son's computer business. It is a settled principle that the petitioner/tenant cannot dictate, terms to landlords in respect of which portion of the premises, the landlord to occupy the property and therefore, the petitioner cannot say that the building is not required for own occupation of the respondent's/landlord's son to do computer business. The various precedents followed by both the forums are to reach the correct proposition of law and the orders passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller is also quite in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and accordingly, the revision petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seek time for the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises preferably by the end of March 2011. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would also agree for the said request of the petitioner/tenant and therefore, this Court has no impediment for granting time to the petitioner to vacate the premises till 31.03.2011. The petitioner is directed to file undertaking affidavit to that effect on or before 15.11.2010. With the aforesaid findings, the revision petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar ssn https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1 The I Addl. Sub-Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Erode. 2 The Principal District Munsif Court, (Rent controller) Erode. +1cc to Mr.T.Murugamanikkam, Advocate Sr.74186 +1cc to Mr.I.C.Vasudevan, Advocate Sr.73930 C.R.P.NPD.No.1242 of 2004 SJ(CO) rvr 13/12/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/