ORDER.-The landlady is the petitioner herein. She filed R.C.O.P. No.13 of 1975 before the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif of Melur for eviction of the respondent herein on the ground that the petitioner required the premises in question for demolition and reconstruction as well as on the ground that the respondent tenant had committed wilful default in the payment of rent. The Rent Controller by his Order dated 29th November, 1975 held that the respondent was guilty of wilful default in the payment of rent and that the requirement of the petitioner of the building for demolition and reconstruction was bona fide and therefore ordered the eviction of the respondent herein. Against this order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority (Principal Subordinate Judge of Madurai). The appellate authority by his order dated 8th November, 1976 reversed the finding of the Rent Controlleron the question of wilful default in the payment of rent on the part of the respondent herein. With regard to the requirement of the landlady under section 14 (1) (6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellate authority did not go into the question as to whether the landlady bona fide required the premises, since the landlady had not given an undertaking as contemplated under section 14 (2) of the Act and therefore on that ground itself the eviction petition filed by the petitioner had to fail. The appelate authority also pointed out that inasmuch as the appeal was being allowed on a technical ground, namely, the necessary undertaking as contemplated under the Act had not been given by the land-lady, she would be at liberty to file a fresh petition for eviction after giving the necessary undertaking and the question would be decided afresh by the Rent Controller. It is to revise the order of the appellate authority, the present petition has been filed under section 25 of the Act.

2. Having regard to the nature of the finding with regard to the allegation of wilful default in the payment on the part of the respondent herein, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not advance any argument to assail the same. However, the learned counsel contended that even when an undertaking as provided for in section 14 (2) was not given before the Rent Controller, it was certainly open to the petitioner to give the undertaking at any later stage and thereby cure the defect, and simply because no undertaking had been given before the Rent Controller, the petition of the petitioner should not have been dismissed. The learned counsel further contends that such plea was not taken by the respondent in the grounds of appeal before the appellate authority and therefore the appellate authority ought not to have taken into account such a ground.

3. In this petition, I do not have the assistance of the respondent since the respondent remains unrepresented. Consequently, I have to deal with the civil revision petition only on the basis of the orders of the Tribunals below, the statutory provisions and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act states as follows:

14(1): Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs or for reconstructions :- 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 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 specif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document