ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Sub Court, Thanjavur, in R.C.A.No.40 of 1993, reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller, Thiruvaiyar, in R.C.O.P. No.6 of 1991.

2. The landowner sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement and for demolition and reconstruction. The tenant is the revision petitioner. In the eviction petition, the respondent herein, contended that he is the owner of the petition premises having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 12.12.1990. The tenant is aware of the purchase and has paid rent up to the end of May, 1991. The building was constructed more than 80 years ago and as the building was not properly maintained, it has become very dilapidated with several big cracks on the ceiling as well as the side walls. The condition of the building was very dangerous and likely to cause damage to the occupant and also resulting in loss to the landowner. Therefore, the tenant has to vacate the premises to enable him to demolish the building and for reconstruction. He also undertook to commence the work within a period of three months after the premises was vacated. In fact, the other tenants who were occupying the portion on the southern side of the same building having appreciated the requirement of the landowner, had vacated their respective portions. But the tenant was refusing to oblige in spite of several personal and oral request. Hence, a legal notice was sent on 14.6.1991 for which a reply was sent by the tenant containing false allegations. The landowner further contended that he was residing with his parents, unmarried brothers and sisters and also an uncle who was a bachelor. They were also residing at door No.9, North Madavilagam, Thiruvaiyar Town, comprising 12 members. On the rear side of the same house, there was a tenant who has been in occupation for a very long time. The younger brother of the landowner was a student of Indian Medicines and after completion of the course, he has to be married and he would require the premises for his personal requirements and for a clinic. Hence, the petition building was required for personal occupation of the landowner and for demolition and reconstruction. Hence, the petition was filed under Sec.14(1)(b) and Sec.10(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960.

3. In the counter filed by the tenant, it was contended that it was false to state that the building was constructed 80 years ago and that it was in a dilapidated condition. The building was not required for demolition. It was also false to state that the other tenants on the southern side had vacated the building so as to enable the landlord to start reconstruction. It is further stated that the land owner had got other places of residence other than the house mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the petition. Therefore, the contention that the petition property was required for the personal occupation of his brother was not correct. The landowner’s brother was not living with him. The previous owner of the petition property had leased out the property to the wife of the tenant for the purpose of running a wet grinder industry and the object of the tenant at the inception was to run the said factory. Therefore, the wife of the tenant was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The tenant’s family was occupying only a small portion of the property. The petition had not been filed with bona fide intention and there was no real requirement for demolition and reconstruction.

4. On the basis of the said pleadings and the evidence, the learned Rent Controller held that there was no bona fide requirement of the premises either for personal occupation or for demolition and reconstruction. He also held that clubbing of the reliefs for personal occupation and for demolition and reconstruction was fatal to the claims of the landowner. As regards the controversy as to whether the responde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document