Undertaking u/s 14(2) (B) ought to have been filed before passing of the order of eviction.

1. The respondent/landlord filed eviction petition against the petitioners under sections 10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease &Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the grounds that the tenants had committed wilful default in payment of rent and that requires the premises in 1 question for demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent controller ordered eviction on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction. Aggrieved, the petitioners/tenants filed appeals before the learned Appellate Authority/sub-Judge, Nagerkoil, in R.C.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 1997. Pending the appeals, the landlord filed applications in I.A.Nos.117 and 118 of 1998 to accept the undertaking which has to be given under section 14(2)(b) of the said Act, and they had been ordered by the appellate authority. Aggrieved, the tenants have filed the above revisions.

2. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent, with respect to the scope of the undertaking, which has to be given under section 14(2)(b) of the said Act, it is necessary to extract the said section itself, which is as follows: -

" 14. Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs or for reconstruction: -

.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of sections 12 and 13, on an application made by a landlord, the controller shall, if he is satisfied:-

.(a)

.(b) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, pass an order directing the tenant to delivery possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date.

.(1) No order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the buildingunder this section shall be passed:-

.(a)

.(b) On the ground specified in clause (b)_ of sub-section (1), unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building shall be substantially commenced by him not later than one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building or before the expiry of such further period as the controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing allow.

Thus it is clear from the said provisions, a direction cannot be given to the tenant to deliver possession unless the landlord gives an undertaking as contemplated under section 14(2)(b) of the Act. Admittedly, in this case, no such undertaking was given before the Rent Controller, and without even such an undertaking the Rent Controller has directed the tenants to deliver vacant possession of the portion of the building in question by allowing the Rent Control Original petitions. Only to rectify the said mistake, the respondent has come forward with the present applications to accept the undertakings, pending the appeals filed by the tenants against the eviction orders.

3. There cannot be any doubt that such an undertaking need not be given only in the eviction petition itself filed before the Rent Controller. It can be by way of a separate affidavit or in the evidence. I seek support to come to such a conclusion from the decision in Thayammal v.K.Subramaniam, 1989 (1) L.W. 228 wherein it has been held as follows:-

"In my view, that statement in the deposition is an undertaking sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 23 of 1973. Neither in the Act nor in the rules any form is prescribed for the undertaking mentioned in the section. When the party gives an evidence on oath and particularly when he signs the deposition, that will be a sufficient undertaking within the meaning of the section. There is no necessity to file a separate undertaking apart from such evidence. Under the section, the undertaking has to be given before the passing of the order of the eviction. In this ca