ORDER: Landlord in R.C.O.P.3498 of 1986 on the file of Rent Controller/XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras is the revision petitioner herein.

2. Application filed by landlord was one for eviction on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and re-construction under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

3. Material averments in the eviction petition could be summarised thus: One Mallikeswara Chetty was the owner of the scheduled premises and he sold the same to landlord. Even before purchase, respondent herein was occupying the entire premises as tenant of Mallikeswara Chetty and after purchase, rent was apportioned between Mallikeswara Chetty and landlord. Tenant also agreed to pay the same at the rate of Rs.200 per month and balance Rs.141 to be paid to the previous owner. Building was let out for residential purpose.

4. It is the case of petitioner that the building is a tiled one built with brick and lime mortar and the age of the building is 75 years, and hence the condition of the building has become flimsy and weak. Landlord is also the owner of the adjacent property lying on the eastern side of the building, bearing door No.341. After purchase of the said building, petitioner had demolished the entire weak structure and put up three storeyed building to have the show room under the name and style ‘M/s.Aruna & Co’. Landlord is a partner in that business and carrying on the business.

5. It is the case of landlord that he has purchased the scheduled premises with a view to demolish the present weak structure and to put up new structure so as to enclose the same with the newly built up area. It is also his case that landlord is not able to accommodate the entire business of M/s.Aruna & Co in the present building. Demolition and reconstruction of scheduled building is also necessary to augment the income and for better investment and use of the property and to expand the business.

6. Petitioner also averred that he also made arrangements to get sanction from the local authorities and it is also stated that he got sufficient means to put up new construction. Various demands were made to tenant to vacate the building and finally a notice was issued on 19.9.1986 terminating the tenancy and asking tenant to vacate the premises. In the reply sent by respondent, he refused to vacate the building which necessitated filing of eviction petition. Landlord has also given an undertaking that he will commence the demolition work within a month from the date of taking possession of the building and complete the reconstruction work within three months.

7. In the first counter-statement filed by respondent, he denied the claim of landlord for eviction of the building on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. According to tenant, building is strong enough and there is no necessity for demolition. The allegation that the building is more than 75 years old is not correct. Vendor of landlord already filed rent control petition in R.C.O.P.No.4900 of 1982 for fixing fair rent wherein the age of the building was also one of the matter considered. At that time it was concluded that the building is only 50 years old and on this date it will not be more than 60 years. It is also contended that the present application is filed only in collusion with Mallikeswara Chetty. Various attempts made by Mallikeswara Chetty to evict tenant have failed and now he has asked the present petitioner to file separate application after selling portion of the property.

8. In the additional counter statement filed by tenant it is contended that the entire tenancy premises have not been purchased by landlord and only a portion has been sold to him. Since entire premises has not been sold, tenancy cannot be split up. But for the sake of convenience, rent payable to original landlord was apportioned and tenant also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.200 to petitioner herein and balance to the prev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document