The failure of a landlord to produce a sanctioned plan for reconstruction prior to filing an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 does not negate the bona fides of the landlord's requirement, where other factors indicate that the requirement is genuine.

Padmini Jesudurai, J.

1. The above civil revision petition by the landlord is directed against the order of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Appellate Authority) in R.C.A. No. 547 of 1985, reversing the order of eviction passed by the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P. No. 3714 of 1983 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of I960 hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows: - The proceedings relate to four shops situate in door No. 99, Waltax Road, Park town, Madras. The petitioner as landlady filed the application under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, against the respondent and three other tenants, each of whom was occupying one shop in the above door Number. Eviction was sought on the ground that the building was more than 70 years old and had developed cracks in many places and the walls were in a dangerous condition. The structure was tiled and the entire building was in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction. Two of the tenants agreed to vacate the premises and had, in fact, vacated. One of the tenants, though initially had filed a counter did not press the same and ultimately vacated the premises. The present respondent alone who is in possession of one shop resisted the landlady's action for eviction. In his counter, the respondent alleged that the age of the building was exaggerated and at any rate the petitioner was put to strict proof that the building was more than 70 years old and that the building was at the most aged only 40 years and was in a sound condition and did not require demolition. It was not admitted that the building was a tiled structure. The request for demolition and reconstruction was not bona fide since an earlier petition seeking eviction of the respondent on the group of sub-letting had been unsuccessful, the present petition had been filed with ulterior motive.

3. Before the Rent Controller, the husband of the petitioner was examined as P.W. 1, and an Engineer, who inspected the petition premises, was examined, as P.W.2. Exs. P1 and P2 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On the side of the respondent his brother was examined as R.W. 1 and R.Ws. 2 and 3 were also examined. Ex. R1 was marked on the side of the respondent.

4. Learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of the materials before him, found that the age of the building was about 107 years and was, therefore, in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition and the petitioner had proved that she had sufficient funds to carry out the work of demolition and reconstruction and that, therefore, the requirement of the petitioner was bona fide and rejecting the contention of the respondent, ordered eviction. Learned Appellate Authority, before whom the respondent took the matter on appeal, concurred with the learned Rent Controller that the petitioner had sufficient means to carry out the task of demolition and reconstruction, but found that since the petitioner had merely produced a permit from the Corporation authorities for demolition of the building, but did not produce the approved plan of the Corporation for the proposed reconstruction, the requirement of the petitioner could not be said to be bona fide and on that finding set aside the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal. Hence the present revision by the aggrieved landlady.

5. Thiru M. Raghavan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the only ground on which the learned Appellate Authority had reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller viz., that the petitioner had failed to produce the sanctioned plan from the local authorities for the proposed reconstruction, was legally untenable in view of the repeated pronouncements of this Court to the contrary. Having found that there was evidence regarding the age of the building and having found