ORDER: Tenant in R.C.O.P No.59 of 1993, on the file of Rent Controller, Ootacamund, is the revision petitioner.

2. Landlord sought eviction of the tenant on two grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

3. Regarding the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, the finding of the Rent controller was against the landlord, and the same was not pursued before the Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller found that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction, and therefore ordered eviction.

4. Though the matter was taken in appeal by the tenant before the Appellate Authority, the same was not successful. The concurrent judgments are assailed in this revision under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act.

5. The Rent Controller relied on Exs.P-1 to P-7, Exs.R-1 to R-4 and the Commissioner’s Report and Engineer’s Exs.C-1 and C-2, apart from the oral evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1, to hold that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

6. Exs.C-1 and C-2 will show the age of the building and its present physical condition. from the report, it could be seen that the building is more than 50 years old, and the walls are constructed with mud and other poor materials. It is also seen from the report that a portion of the building has already collapsed, and the building is in a dangerous condition. Both the Courts below have accepted the report. In fact, Ex.C-2 is a Report of the Engineer who assisted the Commissioner in filing the report Ex.C-1.

7. Regarding the financial position of the landlord, an argument was taken by the learned Counsel that the same was not pleaded, and the authorities below have also not taken into consideration any part of the pleadings. I do not think that there is any merit in the said submission. While considering the bona fides of the claim naturally, one of the points to be considered is, whether the landlord has got sufficient means or capacity to raise funds for putting a new construction. The matter was agitated before the Rent Controller; witnesses were examined, and the tenant was also given opportunity to rebut the evidence.

8. The effect of lack of pleadings came for consideration in the decision reported in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani, (1999)1 S.C.C. 141. That case arose under the Delhi Rent Control Act. In that case, the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for own occupation. The relevant portion of the Section under the Delhi Act provided that the landlord can claim eviction only if he does not have any other suitable residential building. There is no pleading in the eviction petition as to whether the landlord was in possession or not of any other alternate accommodation. At the same time, the tenant proved that on the date of eviction petition, landlord was in possession of another accommodation and the same was surrendered. In view of the lack of pleadings, Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. The matter was taken before the High Court. The High Court negatived the plea of the tenant and allowed the eviction petition. The decision of the High Court was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in that decision. their Lordships held that if eviction is to be ordered on satisfaction of requirements of law, the question would not necessarily depend only on the pleadings. It could be a good defence, and the matter could be decided even without reference to pleadings. In paragraphs 8 to 11, their Lordships have held thus:

"Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Advocate in his reply submitted that the power of revision includes correction of errors of law and on occasions would include intervention of findings of facts where the right of a party is involved which is conferred on a party, that when the bona fide requirements of the landlord was established, the fact that there was suppression of a certain fact be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document