ORDER: The landlord is the revision petitioner.

2. The revision petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the property described in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, as well as contending that he is the landlord, has filed a petition for eviction of the tenant, on the ground that the tenant/respondent had committed willful default in payment of rent; that the demised premises is required for him to carry on business, which he is already owning and that the building, which is in dilapidated condition, is required for immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction, invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1960, hereinafter called “the Act” under Secs.l0(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(i)(b)oftheAct.

3. The respondent/tenant, admitting the tenancy and quantum of rent, opposed the application for eviction on the ground that the landlord alone had refused to receive the rent when tendered, thereby compelling him to deposit the amount into Bank, which was later received by the landlord, showing there was no default, much less willful default, that the premises is not required either for carrying on the business or for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction, in view of the fact the petitioner is having another building nearing completion, which could be occupied by him, for the alleged business, etc. Further, it is the case of the tenant that the landlord wanted a further sum of Rs.50,000 as advance, which was also paid, for which no receipt was issued. Only in order to evict the tenant from the premises, false grounds were invented.

4. On the above pleadings, the parties went on trial before the Rent Controller. On behalf of the petitioner/landlord, including the petitioner, two witnesses have been examined, seeking aid from eight documents, which are sought to be nullified by the examination, of three witnesses on behalf of the tenant seeking buttress from eight documents.

5. The learned Rent Controller, scanning the above evidence and assessing the materials placed before him, including the Commissioner’s report, came to the conclusion that there was no default of rent, much less willful default in payment of rent, that the landlord, who is carrying on business, not owning any other building, and therefore, the building is required for him for personal occupation, and that demand or requirement of the landlord, that the building is required for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. Though one ground was negatived, on two grounds, eviction was ordered on 21.2.2001, which was challenged by the tenant, before the appellate authority in R.C.A.No.2 of 2001.

6. The appellate authority, by going through the detailed judgment rendered by the Rent Controller, as well as hearing the argument advanced, supported by judicial precedent, felt that he can not subscribe his view, to the decision taken by the Rent Controller on the ground, on which the petition for eviction was allowed, though he had confirmed the finding, rendered by the Rent Controller regarding willful default. The appellate authority came to a different conclusion that the alleged requirement of the landlord, that the building is required for his personal occupation was not established, since the same is inconsistent with the ground of demolition and reconstruction, and that the mandatory requirement of Sec.l4(2)(b) of the Act, viz., an undertaking was not furnished either with the petition or before the order being passed, which was not taken note of by the Rent Controller. In this view of the matter, unable to concur with the findings rendered by the Rent Controller, the R.C.A. was allowed, setting aside the findings, which were the cause for eviction according to Rent Controller and ultimately dismissed the petition itself, which is under challenge in this revision.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document