This revision petition arises from the decree passed by the Assistant District Judge in Title Appeal No. 45 of 1984 dismissing the appeal from the decree passed in Title Suit No. 116 of 1983 by Sadar Munsiff, Tezpur.

2. The plaintiff-landlord instituted the suit against the defendant-tenant on the ground that the tenant is a defaulter and the suit premises are bonafide required by the landlord urgently for his own use and occupation by renovating the same as the whole of the house is severely damaged and is a dilapidated one.

3. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the tenant is a defaulter, and that the suit premises are bona fide required by the landlord. The lower appellate Court has held that the tenant is not a defaulter. As regards the bona fide requirement for personal use, the appellate Court has also decided against the landlord by holding that the defendant-tenant is not liable to be evicted on the- ground of personal occupation of the landlord. However, the lower appellate Court has held that the tenant is liable to be evicted as the suit premises are required for reconstruction after demolishing the existing one. Hence this petition.

4. In para 3 of the plaint it is stated : "That moreover the said premises including the whole building is required by the plaintiff urgently for his own use and occupation by renovating the same as the whole building containing the rooms stands severely damaged and in dilapidated condition. The Chairman Biswaoath Charali Town Committe.- also vide his Notice dated 21.2.80 has ordered the plaintiff to reconstruct the said building immediately by demolishing the existing one", (emphasis is mine)

5. Mr. T.C. Khetri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has con­tended that the requirement for renovation is not a ground for eviction of the tenant under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.

6. Section 5 (l)(c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 which provides :

"Where the house is bona fide required by the landlord either for purpose of repairs or rebuilding, or for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house is held, or where the landlord can show any other cause which may be deemed satisfactory by the court;"

In view of section 5 (1) (c) of the Act, the requirement of the landlord can be either for repairs or rebuilding. The two words 'repairs' and 'rebuilding' are used disjunctively and, therefore, it must be assumed that the legislatures have used the two words to express two different and separate meanings. The word 'repair' means to restore to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation, or partial destruction In Greg vs. Planque, (1936) I KB 669 at page 677 it is stated that the word 'repair' means the making of good defects, including renewal where that is necessary". In the case of rebuilding, the building itself demolished and a new building is constructed on the site. According to the dictionary the word 'renovate' means to renew, make over or repair or newness of appearance. In the course of the renovation a part of the building may be demolished and reconstructed on that site. Therefore, renovation is not restricted to the repairs only but it includes demolition of building for construction of another building on the same site.

7. In view of the meanings of the words 'repair', 'rebuilding' and 'renovation' the repair may be included in renovation in certain circumstances. However, the renovation does not necessarily mean repairs only .as the demolition and reconstruction would not be within the meaning of repairs.

8. It is settled that the pleading should receive a liberal constru­ction and not hair technicalities. A reading of the above quoted passage of para 3 of the plaint shows that the case of the plaintiff is of reconstruction. Therefore, the contention of Mr. T.C. Khetri cannot be sustained.

9. The next contention of Mr. Khetri is that the lower appellate Court has not given findings about the 'bona fide' a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document