Landlord has to prove bona fide of requirement.

(Revision Petitions filed against the judgments and decrees passed in R.C.A.Nos.357/2002 and 1376/2003 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 10.12.2004, confirming the order and decree passed in R.C.O.P.Nos.372/1998 and 1695/2002, on the file of the XV and XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 14.2.2002 and 7.8.2003 respectively.)

Common Order:

These Civil Revision Petition Nos.444 and 445 of 2005 have been filed against the judgment and decrees made in R.C.A.No.357/2002 and 1376/2003 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 10.12.2004, confirming the order and decree made in RCOP Nos.372/1998 and 1695/2002 on the file of the XV and XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 14.2.2002 and 7.8.2003 respectively.

2. The petitioner herein is tenant under respondent herein in respect of two shop portions of premises at No.2, Gangai Amman Koil Street, Saligramam, Chennai.26 on a monthly rent of Rs.450/- for each shop portion. The respondent/landlady evolved a scheme to demolish the entire building including the petition shop portions and to reconstruct into high income yielding one by putting up flats, thereby she could augment the income derived from the said property. She has obtained necessary sanction from the corporation for demolition and reconstruction and she has also obtained planning permission and building plan. She has also got necessary funds. She issued notice to the petitioner herein, but the petitioner/tenant did not come forward to hand over possession. Hence she filed RCOP No.372/1998 under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18/1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

3. The petitioner herein resisted the RCOP No.372/1998 by contending that the requirement of the respondent herein is not bona fide, the petition premises is in good and sound condition, the landlady does not have enough funds for reconstruction and the RCOP has been filed only to coerce the tenant to accept the landlady's demand for enhancement of rent.

4. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 14.2.2002 allowed the RCOP, against which the petitioner herein filed an appeal and the appellate authority has also by a common order dated 10.12.2004 upheld the claim of the landlady and rejected the case of the petitioner herein. Hence this C.R.P.No.444/2005 has been filed by the petitioner/tenant.

5. The respondent/landlady also filed two other petitions, i.e., RCOP.No.1757/2001 under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Act and RCOP.No.1695/2002 under Sec.4 of the Act which were also allowed by the Rent Controller. The petitioner herein filed appeals against these orders also. A common order was passed by the appellate authority in all these three appeals in which, as already mentioned, the order in RCOP.No.372/98 was confirmed in RCA.No.357/2002. The appellate authority has also confirmed the order in RCOP.No.1695/2002, but reversed the order made in RCOP.No.1751/2001 by holding that the landlady has not proved the wilful default on the part of the tenant. Against the order made in RCA No.926/2003 dismissing RCOP.No.1751/2001 (wilful default), the respondent has not preferred any Revision.

6. In RCOP.No.1695/2002 the respondent herein as landlady prayed for an order fixing fair rent of the shop portions situated at No.2, Gangai Amman Koil Street, Saligramam, Chennai.26 at Rs.3,624/- instead of Rs.450/- per month, from the date of petition. The petitioner herein resisted the same by contending that the landlady has already filed RCOP.No.372/98 for demolition and reconstruction and therefore the petition for fixation of fair rent is not maintainable. Even otherwise, according to the petitioner herein, the fair rent would be far less than the present rent paid by her. The Rent Controller by order dated 7.8.2003 passed an order fixing the fair rent at Rs.5,145/- per month, which was upheld by the appellate authority on 10.12.2004 in RCA No.1376/2003.

7. The petitioner/tenant