A landlord's application for release of a building from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 should be granted if the work to be undertaken by the landlord amounts to demolition and reconstruction of the building.

ORDER:- These two writ petitions are connected. The petitioner is the owner of premises No.33, Office Venkatachala Mudali St. Triplicane, Madras. He is living in the ground floor of the premises and the first floor is in the occupation of the second respondent, who is a Government allottee. The portion in the occupation of the second respondent consists of a hall, verandah, kudam, living room, bed room etc. The petitioner with the intention of demolishing the first floor and reconstructing it has sought for permission from the Corporation of Madras to effect such alterations and ultimately obtained sanction therefor under building plan No.P.2597 of 1970 dated 28-7-1970. But, as the second respondent was an allottee of the premises through the Government, the petitioner applied to the first respondent for delivery of possession of the same and effectively asked for a release of the first floor from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. In

fact, the application was made under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act. The Accommodation Controller is said to have inspected the plan and enquired the petitioner and ultimately was of the view that the petitioner's request for release could not be granted. The order of the first respondent reads thus:-

"With reference to your petition cited, you are informed that your request for release of the premises under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act has not been complied with. The Corporation sanctioned plan bearing No.B.A.2597/70 dated 21-5-1970 is returned herewith."

The petitioner is aggrieved as against the said order of the 1st respondent and has come up to this court to quash the same. The case of the petitioner is that as the repairs to be undertaken by the petitioner are not to be barely characterised as repairs and alterations, but would tantamount to a demolition of a portion of the building and reconstruction of the same resulting in the identity of the original building being lost and instead a new building being set up. It is urged that the cubicle contents of the room also get enhanced and the roofing will be completely changed from tiled roofing to Madras terrace roofing and the real purpose of the proposed alterations are effectively for demolishing and reconstructing the building and not with any other oblique purposes. Many contentions were raised by the petitioner in support of his application for the rule amongst which the main contentions are as follows. The first respondent who is dealing with rights of parties and who is indeed a quasi-judicial tribunal ought to have given reasons for rejecting the petition of the petitioner and ought not have summarily rejected the same without making it known to others including this court as to what prompted him to reject the application. The second objection which is formidable on facts is that on a casual inspection of the sanctioned plan and the nature of the alterations contemplated, the work to be undertaken by the petitioner is to demolish and reconstruct a building which includes a part of the building under the Act and that therefore the first respondent has no option in such cases except to grant the request, as a private tenant placed under such similar circumstances has practically no remedy in law if such an application filed for eviction before the appropriate authority is bona fide and not oblique. Reliance is placed on Selvaraj v. Narasimha Rao, 1969-1 Mad LJ 587. Reference is also made to the decision in Ramachandran v. Kasim Khaleeli, 1965-1 Mad LJ 78, for the proposition that the removing of roof of a building and putting up another roof in substitution thereof amounts to demolition of the building. Learned Government Pleader would state that, no doubt, the order is non-speaking, but, in the circumstances it should be presumed that the first respondent went into the question of bona fide as well and the order has to be sustained on the ground that the Accommodation Controller was not sati