Conflicting reports by engineers regarding demolition and reconstruction of building.

Thanikkachalam, J.

1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent herein is the tenant in respect of the petition premises situate at No.29, East Koovjam River Road, Chintadripet, Madras-2. The petition premises is residential one and the monthly rent is Rs. 17. According to the landlord the petition premises is aged more than 70 years and it is in a dilapidated condition. The engineer who inspected the premises advised the landlord to carry out extensive repairs. Hence he filed a petition for eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 336 of 1980 on the ground of requiring the petitioner premises for repair. Again on engineer's advice the landlord withdrew the eviction petition H.R.C.O.P. N0. 336 of 1980 and filed a fresh petition H.R.C.O.P. No. 4058 of 1980 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction as contemplated under Section 14(1)(b)of the Act. The landlord issued a notice on 4.9.1980 requesting the tenant to deliver vacant possession of the premises for demolition and reconstruction. The tenant sent a reply denying the allegations made in the notice issued by the landlord.

2. According to the tenant, the existing building is structurally sound and it is not in dilapidated condition as alleged by the landlord. Since the landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground of requiring the petition premises for repair, there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises for demolition and reconstruction. According to the tenant, there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Both the authorities below concurrently came to the conclusion that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises for demolition and reconstruction.

3. P.W. 2 is the Engineer examined by the landlord. He filed Ex. P-20 stating that the building is in a dilapidated condition and it required immediate demolition and reconstruction. On the other hand, the engineer examined on the side of the tenant as R.W. 2 has stated in his report that the future life of the petition premises would be about 50 years and the condition of the building is sound. Therefore the engineers did not agree with each other in the matter of stating the existing condition of the petition premises. If that is so, the proper course would be to appoint a commissioner to find out the real existing condition of the building. That was not done by the authorities below.

4. Since the engineers gave contradicting reports, In order to find out the true existing condition of the petition premises, a commissioner was appointed by this Court to inspect the premises and file his report. Accordingly, the commissioner inspected and filed his report. According to his report, the entire premises is a tiled house. There is no amenities like electricity and water supply. The tiles are covered with tarpaulins. There is a room on the right side. In the left corner of the room there is evidence to show that water is leaking which is marked as L1 in the commissioner's plan. In the entrance passage out of 6 rafters two rafters are in damaged condition. Further, the leakage at the left side corner of the room R1 is clearly visible. One of the beams in the hall is slightly bent in the middle. In Room No. 2 out of 9 rafters 3 are in damaged condition. In Room No. 3 at the right hand side corner of the wall which appears to be a pillar brick is visible at the top marked as D2 in the plan. In this room there are 6 rafters and out of which two are damaged. In the portion marked as C in the plan, there is a wall of 6 feet height and in the said wall there is a crack of 6". In the portion marked as 'C' in the plan, the flooring is of mud smeared with cow dung. According to the commissioner, the building would have