ORDER: The landlord, who had succeeded in his attempt to evict the tenant from the premises under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as ‘Act’) failed before the Appellate Authority and the result is, he is before me as revision petitioner.

2. The petitioner as landlord, had filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Pudukkottai for the eviction of the respondent/tenant, contending that he had proposed to demolish the present old building and the same is required bona fidely for the purpose of demolition and construction of a new building, in order to have better investment for the augmentation of the income, since the income derived at present from the premises is not economical. It is also the case of the landlord, that the demised building is very old and the same is not in good condition, requiring immediate demolition and new construction. It is further stated that necessary approval was obtained by filing plans for approval. In this way, on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, giving undertaking also, as seen from para 10 of the petition, landlord filed a petition.

3. The respondent/tenant, tracing out the origin of tenancy and admitting, at present, the petitioner is the owner of the building, had opposed the eviction petition, on the ground that the building is in good state, which does not require immediate demolition and reconstruction. It is further pointed out, that the ground sought for, for the eviction of the tenant viz., demolition and reconstruction of a new model building and personal occupation for his business is not bona fide, since the petitioner is having several suitable buildings in Bazaar Street to occupy for him, if he wants.

4. In the additional counter, a contrary defence was taken diametrically opposite to the original counter regarding ownership, as if the petitioner is not the owner of the premises and therefore the petition is not maintainable.

5. On the above pleadings, the parties went on trial before the Rent Controller, where the petitioner is examined as P.W.1, and one engineer is examined as P.W.2, which is sought to be assailed by the examination of the tenant as R.W.1. On behalf of the petitioner, five documents were exhibited, whereas on behalf of the respondent/tenant, eleven documents were exhibited.

6. The learned Rent Controller appraising the facts and circumstances of the case, weighing the evidence and applying the provisions of law, as held by the Courts of hierarchy, came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and thereby ordering eviction on 31.1.1997, she allowed the application, giving cause of action for the tenant to prefer appeal.

7. In R.C.A.No.5 of 1997 before the Appellate Tribunal, Pudukkottai, the order of the Rent Controller was put to test. The Appellate Authority, on the materials available on record, unable to agree with the findings of the Rent Controller, differed and the result is setting aside of the Rent Controller’s order, allowing the appeal and dismissing the R.C.O.P., thereby giving cause of action for the landlord to come to this Court, once again for the relief.

8. Heard Mr.A.J.Abdul Razak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

9. The point for determination is:

Whether the requirement of the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a building on the site is bona fide, if so, whether an order of eviction could be passed?

10. The petition mentioned property, measuring an extent of 13 x 34 feet situated at South Rajaveedhi, North Lane, Pudukkottai Town, belongs to the petitioner. This building is under the occupation of the respondent as tenant, a non-residential one. The landlord wants to demolish the building in order to put up a new building, so that he can have better investment of his money, in addition with an idea of running his own business. The tenant, in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document