1. Eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for demolition and reconstruction of a building. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 927
2000(4) Supreme 575
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
V.N. Khare & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
K.M. Abdul Razzak -Appellant
versus
Damodharan -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 602 of 2000
Decided on 2-5-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S. Sivasubramanian, Sr. Advocate, S. Aravindh, Senthil Jagadeesa Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. V. Mohana and Ashok Agrawal, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, it is not permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its revisionery jurisdiction to act as an appellate court to reappraise or reassess the evidence afresh as an appellate court and come to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the court below.
Under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, it is not permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its revisionery jurisdiction to act as an appellate court to reappraise or reassess the evidence afresh as an appellate court and come to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the court below.
Subject
Landlord and Tenant - Eviction
Act Referred
TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS LEASE AND RENT CONTROL ACT: S.25, S.14(1)(b)
Headnote
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Section 25 r/w 14(1)(b)-Revision-Scope of power of High Court-High Court cannot act as an appellate Court to reappraise or reassess evidence afresh and come to a different finding-Eviction sought for on ground building in dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction-Concurrent findings that building not in dilapidated condition and consequent dismissal of eviction petition-Pending revision before High Court legal position changing in view of decision of Supreme Court in Vijay Singh & Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, 1996(6) SCC 475 which laid down illustrative elements to be considered by rent Controller in considering application under Section 14(1)(b)-High Court itself should not have recorded findings on those aspects and decided case against tenant-Case should have been remanded to appellate authority-Judgment of High Court set aside and matter remanded to appellate authority. (Paras 4 and 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, could re-evaluate evidence to reach a different finding than the lower courts. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 by re-appreciating evidence and acting as an appellate court instead of remanding the matter. (Para 5 )
4. A court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appraise or reassess evidence afresh to reach findings contrary to those of the lower courts. (Para 5 )
5. High Court judgment set aside and matter remanded to the appellate authority for decision in accordance with law. (Para 6 )
6. What are the illustrative elements for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960?
The court must consider the landlord's bona fide intention (not merely to evict), the age and condition of the building, and the landlord's financial capacity to construct a new building according to law. (Para 4 )
7. Can a High Court re-evaluate evidence while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act?
No, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to re-appraise or reassess evidence afresh to arrive at a different finding contrary to the findings recorded by the court below. (Para 5 )
8. What is the proper procedure when a change in law occurs during a revisional proceeding?
If a change in legal position requires the consideration of additional elements not previously decided, the revisional court should remand the case to the appellate authority to record those findings. (Para 5 )
ORDER
Appellant herein, is the tenant. The respondent-landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller at Madurai for eviction of the appellant-tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The case of the landlord was that the building is in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, it requires demolition and reconstruction. The landlord also stated that he has sufficient funds to raise the new construction. The Rent Contoller, before whom the aforesaid petition was filed, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the disputed premises and submit a report in respect thereof. The Commissioner inspected the premises with the help of a Chartered Engineer and submitted his report. In his report the Commissioner found that the premises was old one, but was not in a dilapidated condition so as to require demolition and reconstruction. Parties also led evidence in respect thereof. The Rent Controller after considering the entire material on record, recorded a finding that building is not in a dilapidated condition so as to require demolition and reconstruction and, therefore, the landlord was not in a bona fide need of the premises. The Rent Controller recorded a further finding that the financial condition of the appellant is not such as he could raise construction after demolition. With these findings the petition filed by the landlord was dismissed. The landlord thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Act. The appellate authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller as regards the condition of the premises. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The landlord thereafter preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court. The High Court, after re-assessing the evidence was of the view that the building is in a dilapidated condition, the appellant has adequate funds to raise the construction, and further the landlord is in bona fide need of the premises. After recording the said findings the High Court set aside the judgment of the court below and allowed the revision. It is against the said judgment the tenant is in appeal before us.
2. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the High Court in exercise of its revisional power could not have reassessed or re-evaluated the evidence on record afresh and come to a different finding and thus, the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. This has been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. He urged that, in view of the change in law, the High Court was perfectly justified in recording a different finding than what was recorded by the court below and the judgment does not suffer from any infirmity.
3. Before we take up the arguments of the parties we would like to notice here the legal position prevailing at the time when the landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Section 14(1)(b) reads as under :
"14(1)(b)-that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date."
4. Interpreting the aforesaid provision, this Court in the case of P. ORR & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd.1 held that a landlord can succeed in an application under Section 14(1)(b) only when it is established that the building is in a dilapidated condition which requires immediate demolition. This was the legal position when the Rent Controller in the present case decided the application of the landlord for eviction of the appellant tenant. When the revision filed by the landlord was pending before the High Court the principle laid by this Court in the case of P. ORR & Sons (P) Ltd. (supra) for co
