SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Mad) 25

Madras High Court
GOVINDAN NAIR,V. RAMASWAMI
K.Krishnan - Appellant
Versus
Munusamy - Respondent
Decided On : 01/12/1978

The change of roof alone does not amount to 'demolition' within the meaning of S.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Headnote:

LANDLORD AND TENANT - RENT CONTROL - EVICTION - DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION - MEANING OF 'DEMOLITION' - CHANGE OF ROOF NOT AMOUNTING TO DEMOLITION - TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT (18 OF 1960), S.14(1)(B).

Fact of the Case:

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under S.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming that he required the building for demolition and reconstruction of a new building. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, holding that the requirement of demolition and reconstruction had not been established. The appellate authority reversed the Rent Controller's decision, finding that the landlord intended to change the tiled roofing of the building into a 'Madras terrace' but did not intend to touch the walls or make any other changes.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the change of roof alone would not amount to 'demolition' within the meaning of S.14(1)(b) of the Act. The court interpreted 'demolition' to mean a destruction so total as to result in the ruins of the building, and that the old building must come to an end so totally as to amount to substantially ceasing to exist.

Issues: Whether the change of roof of a building amounts to 'demolition' within the meaning of S.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the change of roof alone would not amount to 'demolition' within the meaning of S.14(1)(b) of the Act. The court interpreted 'demolition' to mean a destruction so total as to result in the ruins of the building, and that the old building must come to an end so totally as to amount to substantially ceasing to exist. The court further held that the intention of the Legislature in providing S.16(2) of the Act, which exempts new buildings from the provisions of the Act for a period of five years, was to encourage the construction of new buildings and that this intention should be considered when interpreting S.14(1)(b).

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the appellate authority, and restored the order of the Rent Controller.

Judgement

GOVINDAN NAIR, C.J. :- This is a civil revision petition against the order passed by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), taken by the tenant complaining against the order of eviction passed by the appellate authority under S.14(1) (b) of the said Act.

2. The petition for eviction was dismissed by the first authority on the ground that the requirement of the building for demolishing and erecting a new building on the same site has not been established.

3. S.14(1)(a) and (b) and S.14(2)(a) and (b) which are necessary for our purpose run as follows -

S.14. Recovery of possession by landlord for reconstruction -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Ss.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 specified date.

(2) No order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building under this Section shall be passed -

(a) on the ground specified in cl.(a) of Sub-Sec. (1) unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the building shall, on completion of the repairs, be offered to the tenant, who delivered possession in pursuance of an order under Sub-Sec. (1) for his re-occupation before the expiry of three months from the date of recovery of possession by the landlord, or before the expiry of such further period as the Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow; or

(b) on the ground specified in cl.(b) of Sub-Sec. (1) unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building shall be substantially commenced by him not later than one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building or before the expiry of such further period as the Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow".

The word 'repairs' referred to in S.14(1)(a) of the Act has been defined in S.2(7) thus -

" 'repairs' means the restoration of a building to a sound or good state after decay or injury, but does not include additions, improvements or alterations except in so far as they are necessary to carry out such restoration."

4. 'Demolition' mentioned in Section 14(1)(b) has not been defined under the Act nor is there any definition as to what is meant by a 'new building'. But turning to the scheme of the Act, it is clear that a freedom is given to the landlord when the requirements of S.14(1)(b) are made out, to ask for possession of the building let out, and demolish that building and on the site on which the building stood, erect a new building. Apart from the requirement of S.14(1)(b) there is the requirement under S.14(2)(b) that the landlord should undertake to commence demolishing material portion of the building not later than one month and complete the demolition before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building. On failure to comply with the requirement in S.14(2)(b), the tenant can ask for recovery of possession of the building from the landlord under S.16. These provisions in S.14(1)(a) and (b) provide that the Rent Controller shall be satisfied that the requirements of the landlord are bona fide, namely for the purpose of demolishing and erecting a new building, on the site of the building. S.14(2)(b) insists that the work of demolishing a material portion of the building s



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top