Requirement given for eviction of tenant not bonafide.

The landlady aggrieved against the order rejecting her eviction petition filed against the tenants, has filed the above revisions.

2. The premises in question originally belonged to the husband of the landlady, and after his death, his sons and daughters inherited the same. The landlady filed the eviction petitions to evict the tenants on the ground that she requires the respective premises for demolition and reconstruction. In the petitions she has stated that the premises are very old and in a dilapidated condition. So she wants to demolish and reconstruct the same as multi-storeyed ones. According to her, the premises are in the verge of falling down. The said petitions were resisted by the respective tenants by filing respective counters in the respective cases: The main defence that was taken in the counters was that the requirement of the landlady is not true, genuine or bona fide. According to them, the premises are in good and habitable condition and well-maintained. The learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Coimbatore, after considering the oral documentary evidence allowed the petitions. Aggrieved against the same, the tenants filed appeals before the appellate authority/learned Sub-Judge, Coimbatore. The appellate authority accepting the case of the tenants that the landlady is going to remove the ceiling only, keeping the walls intact, held that the petitions under Sec.l4(l) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 cannot be maintained and thereby allowed the appeals setting aside the order of eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the landlady has filed the above revisions.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/tenants has raised an objection saying that the petitioner/landlady is only one of the sharers and so she cannot maintain the petitions. Admittedly, her sons and daughters are also entitled to right in the properties in question, and, without even impleading them, the petitions cannot be maintained. I find it difficult to accept the said argument.

.4. This plea was not at all raised neither in the counter nor before the authorities below. Moreover as a co-owner, the landlady is as much as a owner of the entire properties as any sole owner of the properties in question. The legislature has not provided any restriction on the co-owner to file an application under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Act. The only restriction that has been imposed under the Act is under Sec. 10(8) of the Act, and, that too only against the agent of the landlord/landlady. In the absence of any such restriction, it will be foreign to hold that the co-owner cannot maintain the petition for demolition and reconstruction, especially when no evidence is available before the authorities below to show that the other sharers are not willing to demolish and reconstruct the premises in question. Support is also gained for this view in Shanmugha Appah v. Abdul Hameed, (1973)1 M.L.J. 241, wherein P.S.Kailasam, J., as he then was, has held that petition for eviction by one co-owner even for demolition and reconstruction is maintainable. Hence the contention raised on behalf of the tenants by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be countenanced.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ landlady has submitted that since by removing the ceiling and raising further construction in the premises the original building will lose its identity, the proposal of the landlady can be construed only as demolition and reconstruction and so the appellate authority is not correct in setting aside the order of eviction.

.6. The appellate authority has found that the petition premises in R.C.O.P.No.203 of 1984 is situate in Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore which is a commercial centre and there are multi-storeyed buildings around that locality. The appellate authority has also found that the landlady has got permission from the concerned municipality and she is having sufficient funds for demolition and