ORDER: Respondents 1 to 12 in this revision filed R.C.O.P.No.43 of 1989 against the revision petitioners seeking their eviction under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. On merits that petition came to be dismissed. The landlords appealed in R.C.A.No.6 of 1995 before the Appellate Authority Erode, who allowed that appeal on merits resulting in the eviction of the petitioners in this revision having come to be passed under Sec.14(1)(b) of the said Act. It is the correctness of the said order that is being challenged in this revision before this Court. Heard Mr.S.V.Jayaraman learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as Mr.R.Sekar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 12 in this revision.

2. The learned senior counsel mainly contended that the landlords have not established that the building in question is required for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction, though they have pleaded so in the petition. In the absence of proof that the building is required for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction, the Appellate Authority had completely erred in law and on facts in ordering eviction. The learned senior counsel also contended that, even assuming for a moment without admitting that the landlords have established the condition of the building warranting an order of eviction, yet that alone would not be sufficient, in the absence of the landlords establishing their bona fides in regard thereto. The learned Rent Controller, while dismissing the eviction petition, not only found that the condition of the building had not been established, but also found that the bona fides of the landlords is also not established. However the Appellate Authority, while ordering eviction, had not adverted to the bona fide needs of the landlords in this case and consequently there is no finding on that subject. The only pleading is that the landlords wanted to demolish the non-residential holding and to put up a residential building. It has come out in evidence that the landlords own a number of residential buildings; they are in occupation of their own residential building and this aspect had been taken into account by the Rent Controller to find against the landlords on the question of bona fides. All the above mentioned aspects have escaped the attention of the Appellate Authority and therefore the order of the Appellate Authority suffers from illegality on that aspect as well. In other words, the sum and substance of the argument of the learned senior counsel is that, the landlords have neither established the condition of the building warranting an order of eviction, nor have established their bona fides and therefore they are not entitled to any order of eviction at all on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

3. Opposing the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel, Mr.R.Sekar learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 12 would contend that the proceedings under the Rent Control Act being summary in nature, strict rules of pleadings as contemplated in the regular civil litigation cannot be insisted upon. The Court trying a case under the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act should go by the totality of the pleadings and evidence available and decide on that, as to whether the parities to the litigation have made out their respective cases or not. As far as the condition of the building is concerned, the learned counsel would contend that the materials available on record do establish the condition of the building warranting an order of eviction to be passed and those materials alone have gone into the mind of the Appellate Authority, who ordered eviction. As far as the bona fides are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that talking into account the nature of the construction; the locality in which the building is situated and the importance of that area, it can be safely inferred and held that the landlords have established their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document