IMPORTANT POINT
Term "immediate" as qualifying demolition in Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act suggests the proximity of purpose and not the proximity of time or urgency of demolition.

ORDER

Two applications, seeking eviction of the tenant for the purpose of demolition and re-construction, as contemplated by clause-(b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act for short) were disposed of by a common order by the controller, directing the tenants to be evicted. The tenants preferred appeals before the appellate authority which were allowed and the order of the controller was set aside. The landlord preferred revision petitions before the High Court which have been allowed and in supersession of the order of the appellate authority, the High Court has restored the order of eviction passed by the rent controller.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the tenants have filed these two appeals by special leave.

3. The suit premises are a part of a larger property situated in the city of Madurai. It appears that the property of the landlord admeasures around 2688 sq.ft., out of which the two appellants before us are occupying approximately 380 sq.ft. area each as tenant. There was a third tenant, namely, Raja Ram, also in possession of a similar area who was also ordered to be evicted by an order of the controller passed on the same day but he has surrendered possession to the landlord in compliance with the order passed by the controller and has not pursued the matter further. The case of the landlord is that the building in occupation of the appellants is a very old one, almost eighty years on the date of initiation of the proceedings and the landlord bona fide required the premises for the immediate purpose of demolition and instead constructing a marriage hall in an area of about 1710 sq.ft. so as to put the property to a better use and augment and earnings of the landlord. The case of the landlord, as already stated, has been accepted by the controller as also by the High Court.

4. A perusal of the judgment of the appellate authority shows that the reasons which prevailed with it to reverse the order of eviction passed by the controller were that though the building was an old one, yet, it was not dilapidated or in a dangerous condition so as to require an immediate demolition; that though the proceedings for eviction were initiated by the landlord in the year 1981, more than 12 years had elapsed by the time, the appellate authority came to decide the appeals and, yet, the condition of the building was the same and if the building was maintained carefully, it would last long and, therefore, the building could not be said to have been required for the purpose of being demolished immediately and necessary repairs would suffice. The appellate authority also held that reconstruction in the city of Madurai requires, as per the local laws, the building plans being sanctioned and periodically renewed by the municipal corporation of Madurai as also by the director, town and country planning. However, the director, town and country planning had rejected the building plans and, therefore, the Madurai Municipal Corporation had also rejected the same. The appellate authority also noted incidentally that in the part of the property vacated by Raja Ram, the landlord had commenced construction. As the case pleaded by the landlord was of proposed construction of marriage hall in an area of 1700 sq. ft. and over the area now remaining in the occupation of the two appellants which is approximately 760 sq.ft. only, it was not possible to construct the marriage hall of the dimensions, as proposed. The High Court held the order of the appellate authority to be illegal and perverse and hence entered into an independent appreciation of the respective cases of the parties, as emerging from the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and other material brought before it for its consideration. The High Court found that the landlord had, in the year 1985 itself, submitted revised plans in view of the construction already undertaken by him on the por