IMPORTANT POINT
Where the newly constructed double storeyed building would certainly provide much more total accommodation than what is available, the offer of the existing tenants of paying higher rent for existing small accommodation is not relevant to dismiss need of landlord u/s. 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, for eviction on ground of immediate demolition and reconstruction.

Headnote:(i) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Sections 14(1), (2), 15 and 16-Eviction on ground of bonafide need for repairs u/s. 14(1)(a) r/w right of re-entry u/s. 15-Eviction on ground of bonafide need for immediate demolition and reconstruction u/s. 14(1)(b) without right of re-entry u/s. 16-Whether there is a serious lacuna by not providing re-entry for ground of u/s. 14(1)(b)? (No)-1987(4) SCC 238 relied on. (Paras 6 & 7)
       (ii) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Sections 14(1)(b) r/w 14(2) and 16-Eviction on ground of bonafide need for immediate demolition and reconstruction-Decreed by appellate Court as landlord wanted to construct a new and modern building in busy commercial locality-Landlord had funds and plans, utilising vacant space-Needed to augment earnings and for his own requirement-Reversed in Revisional High Court as tenants were prepared to pay rent at the current rate-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right? (No)-Appeal allowed-But certain direction issued to safeguard the interest of tenant-Case law referred.
       Held : Thus, on a broad conspectus, the situation which emerges is that out of the total property of the landlord, part is lying unconstructed and part is constructed. The constructed portion is covered with asbestos sheets or tiles used as roof. The property is valuable as situated in busy business locality. The building was about 30 years old by the year 1989. If reconstructed, obviously the building would be double-storeyed, a modern building of cement concrete and would admittedly fetch more rental income apart from satisfying some personal need of the landlord. The appellate authority considered all the evidence and relevant circumstances of the case and arrived at a finding that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide. These findings have been reversed by the High Court mainly on the ground, as the judgment of the High Court reveals, that as the tenants were prepared to pay Rs. 1.25p. per sq. feet by way of rent in respect of the existing accommodation, the question of reconstructing the building for the purpose of augmenting earnings of the landlord, and that too after spending Rs. 6 lakhs, did not arise. The High Court observed that merely because the landlord was having sufficient funds and had got the plans of proposed reconstruction approved, the Court could not order eviction. (Para 4)
       After referring case law held : Viewed from the angle of general interest of the public which, according to the decision in P. Orr & Sons is one of the considerations, it was observed that a big site should yield to a larger modern building with an increased and enlarged accommodation having better facilities to solve the ever increasing demand for more space. Stalling growth and development for the sake of one tenant who is in occupation of an old model building constructed with mud and mortar and asbestos sheets occupying only one third of the site was held to be not conducive to public interest. We approve the statement of law and the approach adopted by Madras High Court in both the abovesaid decisions. The structural and physical features and the nature of the construction of the building cannot be ignored. Even in P. Orr & Sons, this Court was of opinion that various circumstances, such as the capacity of the landlord, size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors, justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authorities, while considering the requirement for reconstruction of the building as the essential and overriding consideration in the general interest of the public and for the protection of the tenant from unreasonable eviction. (Para 11)
       Held thereafter : Reverting back to the case at hand, we find that the six tenants are not in full occupation of the entire space available. The landlord proposes to construct a new and modern building in busy commercial locality of a rising city. The landlord requires a part of the newly constructed building for his own personal use and such part of the newly constructed building as would be in excess of his own requirement he is willing to let out at current rate of rent to his tenants which would obviously augment his earnings. The newly constructed double storeyed building, would certainly provide much more total accommodation than what is available. In such circumstances the offer of the tenant that they are prepared to pay the rent at the current rate, the one which the landlord expects on reconstruction, becomes irrelevant and should not have prevailed with the High Court. (Para 12)
       Held finally : For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision of the appellate authority. The appeals are allowed. Judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the appellate authority restored. However, in view of the time that has already been lost in the litigation and to protect the interest of the tenants and certainly to allay their fears, it is directed that the executing Court shall, before directing the tenants to be evicted and possession being given to the landlord, direct the landlord to file plans of proposed construction, duly approved by the local authority, and give an undertaking in terms of Section 14(2)(b) of the Act. No order as to costs. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-The suit property consists of a building situated on Easvarankoil Street of Tirupur city in the State of Tamil Nadu. There are six tenants in the building and the portions in their occupation are identified respectively as door Nos. 64, 64A, 64B, 64C, 64D and 64E. Six petitions for evicting the tenants were filed before the Controller on the ground available under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of The Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control Act) 1960 (hereinafter the Act , for short) alleging that the building was 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. The tenants resisted the proceedings for eviction. One of the pleas taken by them was that the land, on which the building stood, belonged to Veeraragava Perumal and Visweswara temple and, therefore, the question of the landlord reconstructing any building over the land did not arise. However, this plea did not find favour with the Controller and, at the stage of appeal, the plea was specifically given up by the tenants. Similarly the landlord had sought for eviction of the tenants also on the ground of the tenants being wilful defaulters but that plea was given up by the landlord. What survives for consideration is, therefore, solely the availability of ground for eviction under Section 14(1)(b). The Controller negated the availability of this ground for eviction. The landlord preferred six appeals which were allowed and, in supersession of the order of the Controller, the petitions for eviction were allowed and the tenants were directed to be evicted. Out of six tenants, one has submitted to the order of the appellate authority. Five tenants preferred civil revision petitions before the High Court. The High Court has re-appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding that the requirement of the landlord could not be said to be bona fide and by a common order, directed the eviction petitions to be dismissed. The landlord has filed these five appeals by special leave.

2. Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 14 and Sections 15 & 16 of the Act, relevant for our purpose, read as under:-

"14. Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs or for reconstruction.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of sections 12 and 13, on an application made by a landlord, the Controller shall, if he is satisfied-

(a) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated; or

(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 erection 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.

(2) No order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building under this section shall be passed-

(a) on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the building shall, on completion of the repairs, be offered to the tenant, who delivered possession in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1) for his reoccupation before the expiry of three months from the date of recovery of possession by the landlord, or before the expiry of such further period as the Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow; or

(b) on the ground specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1), unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building shall be substantially commenced by him not later than one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 454

Cases Referred (3)