Back
1999 Supreme(Mad) 1095
High Court of Judicature at Madras
.
Akbar Ali and others
Versus
Donian Rodrigo and another
C.R.P. Nos. 2216 and 2217 of 1991
Decided On : 20-10-1999
Mr. R. Singaravelan for Mr. M. Vijayakumar, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior Advocate for Mr. Shanmugam in C.R.P.No.2216 and Mr. A. Muthukumar, Advocate in C.R.P.No.2217 of 1991 for Respondents.
The requirement of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 must be bona fide, and the landlord must give a valid undertaking to demolish and reconstruct the building within the time prescribed by the Act. The landlord must also have the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction, and must not have any ulterior motives in filing the petition.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - BUILDING (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1960 - SECTION 14(1)(B) - REQUIREMENT OF LANDLORD FOR DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION - BONA FIDE - UNDERTAKING - POWER OF ATTORNEY - VALIDITY - MENTAL CAPACITY OF LANDLORD - AGE AND CONDITION OF BUILDING - FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF LANDLORD - MOTIVE.
Fact of the Case:
Two civil revision petitions filed by landlords against tenants for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The property in question was a building in Mayuram Town. The landlords claimed they required the building for demolition and reconstruction, and had the necessary funds and plans to do so. The tenants resisted the claim, contending that the petition was not maintainable, the power of attorney was not genuine, one of the petitioners was not mentally sound, the building was not in a dilapidated condition, and the landlords had ulterior motives in filing the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlords had given a valid undertaking to demolish and reconstruct the building within the time prescribed by the Act. The court also found that the power of attorney executed by the petitioners was valid, and that even if it was not, the other co-owners could maintain the application. The court further found that the fourth petitioner was not of unsound mind, and that the building was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition. The court also found that the landlords had sufficient financial means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction. Finally, the court found that the landlords did not have any ulterior motives in filing the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlords had given a valid undertaking to demolish and reconstruct the building within the time prescribed by the Act? 2. Whether the power of attorney executed by the petitioners was valid? 3. Whether the fourth petitioner was of unsound mind? 4. Whether the building was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition? 5. Whether the landlords had sufficient financial means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction? 6. Whether the landlords had any ulterior motives in filing the petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the landlords had given a valid undertaking to demolish and reconstruct the building within the time prescribed by the Act, as the undertaking in the petition, though not in the exact wording of the Act, contained the essence of Section 14(2)(b) of the Act and broadly indicated compliance. 2. The court held that the power of attorney executed by the petitioners was valid, as it was not necessary for the landlords to file a separate affidavit of undertaking or faithfully reproduce the wording employed in the Section. 3. The court held that the fourth petitioner was not of unsound mind, as the evidence of the tenant was insufficient to support the contention that he was insane or of unsound mind. 4. The court held that the building was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition, as the evidence showed that the building was over 100 years old, made of mud walls, and had cracks and damaged rafters and beams. 5. The court held that the landlords had sufficient financial means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction, as they had submitted plans and obtained necessary sanctions from the Municipality, and had stated in their evidence that they had sufficient funds. 6. The court held that the landlords did not have any ulterior motives in filing the petition, as the evidence did not show that they were attempting to sell the property or extract more rent from the tenants.
Final Decision: The court allowed both revision petitions, setting aside the order of the lower appellate court and restoring the order of the Rent Controller. The petitions for eviction were allowed with costs throughout.
1. These two civil revision petitions are filed by the landlords. The landlords filed two petitions, one in RCOP No.47 of 1982 and another in RCOP. No. 48 of 1982 against the tenants for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The property which is the subject matter of the petition for eviction in RCOP No.47 of 1982 is comprised in Door No.69, Pattamangalam Street, Mayuram Town, measuring 7000 sq. ft. The petition in RCOP. No.48 of 1982 related to 240 sq. ft. comprised in Door No.69-B, Pattamangalam Street,Mayuram Town. In other words, the two properties are part of the same building.
2. The petitioners in RCOP No.47 of 1982 putforward the case for eviction on these following allegations:- The property belongs to the petitioners who are brothers. It had been rented out to the respondent on monthly rental of Rs.525.The building is more than 100 years old. The rear portion has fallen down. The petitioners require the said building for demolish and to put up a new construction. They have got the sufficient funds to put up new construction. They undertake to demolish the buildings, within a time to be fixed by this Court. A notice was issued on 16. 1982 requiring the tenant to vacate the building and hand over the possession. The said notice was returned as refused. Hence the petition.
3. The respondent resisted the claim contending thus:- The petition is not maintainable in law or fact. The power of attorney is not admitted by the respondent the genuine and if the power is true, he has got no locus standi to file this application. the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act cannot be applied. One of the petitioners is not mentally sound and the claim of the petitioner is not true. They do not require the building for the purpose of demolition. The building is not 100 years old. It is in good condition and it need not be demolished. Since the respondent has not agreed to pay the huge demand of rent of Rs.1,000 per month, this application is filed to coerce the respondent. It is not true to say that the back portion of the building is damaged. Previously also number of eviction petitions were filed against the respondent to coerce him to pay more rent for the building. The object of filing this application is only to get more rent from the respondent. The petitioners are highly indebted. They do not have funds either jointly or severally to put up any new construction. No notice was sent to this respondent and he has not refused any notice. The respondent is a ceylon repatriate and he has got no other building nor any other resource of income. He is there in the building for the past about 17 years. Number of persons depend upon the respondent and if the respondent is ordered to vacate the building, they will have to stand in the streets. Hence, this application may be dismissed with costs.
4. The case putforward in RCOP No.48 of 1982 by the petitioner is as follows:-The petitioners are brothers. The property belongs to them, which has been rented out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs 200 per month. The building is 100 years old. The back portion of the main building has fallen down. The suit building along with the portion given to Indo-Ceylon Ryon Bakery forms one unit. They want to demolish the entire structure and put up a new building. The petitioners have got sufficient funds to put up a new construction. They undertake to demolish the building within a time to be fixed by this Court. In spite of notice, the respondent did not comply with the same. Hence the petition.
5. The respondent contended as follows:-This petition is not maintainable. It is not admitted that they are represented by power agent. The power is not admitted by the respondent as genuine. One of the petitioners is not mentally sound and he has got on locus standi to file this application. The petitioners do not require the building for the purpose of
