Plea taken by tenant held not bonafide.

The respondents in R.C.O.P.No.93 of 1983 on the file of the Rent (Principal District Munsif), Coimbatore are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given in the R.C.O.P.

2. The petitioner filed an application for eviction against the respondents under Secs.l4(i)(b) and 14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.93 of 1983 is as The first respondent is a registered firm whose present partners are respondents 2 Formerly the second respondent and F.Mohamed Hussain were partners of the firm. death of F.Mohamed Hussain, the third respondent herein has become the partner along the second respondent in the respondents/firm. The respondents 4 to 9 are the legal the deceased partners of F.Mohamed Hussain. The petitioner purchased the mentioned property on 19.9.1974 and at the time of purchase it was subject usufructuary mortgage deed dated 14.5.1967 executed by the petitioner’s vendor in of one Rahman Sheriff, who was in possession of the petition mentioned property as fructuary mortgagee. The deceased F.Mohamed Hussain was the tenant in respect petition mentioned property under the usufructuary mortgagee in the first instance and on after the redemption of the usufructuary mortgage the said Mohamed Hussain became the tenant under the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner filed an application for eviction the said F.Mohamed Hussain in R.C.O.P.No.327 of 1975 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore on the ground that the petitioner required the petition mentioned property his own use and for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The respondent R.C.O.P.No.327 of 1975 contested the application, but, finally submitted to an order of eviction and took time to vacate the building. Before the petitioner execute the order of eviction obtained by him in R.C.O.P.No.327 of 1975 the respondents to 3 filed a suit O.S.No.518 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Coimbatore, declaration that the first respondent - firm was the tenant of the petition mentioned and the order of eviction, obtained against Mohamed Hussain in his individual capacity R.C.O.P.No.327 of 1975 was not binding on respondents 1 to 3 and prayed for the injunction. In the suit the respondents 1 to 3 also raised the contentions that what was on lease was only a site and not the building. The civil court negatived the plea respondents 1 to 3 that the original lease was in respect of the site alone, but held lease was in respect of both the site as well as the building. It was further held in O.S.No.518 of 1979 that the tenant of the petition mentioned property is the first respondent not the individual, Mohamed Hussain. As per the decision of the civil court in O.S.No.518 1979 the petitioner is a landlord and the first respondent - firm and its partners are with regard to the petition mentioned premises. The petition mentioned building is an substantial one. The petitioner purchased the property primarily for the site value with to put up thereat a new structure after pulling down the existing structure for a better profitable investment and increased return on such investment.

3. The respondents resisted the application for eviction contending as follows:

Respondents are the owners of the superstructure described in the petition and the is only the owner of the vacate site and that the first respondent is entitled to the benefits the Tamil Nadu City Tenants ’ Protection Act. As there is a bona fide dispute regarding title to the superstructure, the application for eviction filed before the Rent Controller the provisions of the Act is not maintainable. The petition mentioned vacant site was out by the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title in the year 1955 to one Arunachalam