Requirement for demolition of building not averred in the eviction petition.

The tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), who has failed in both the courts below, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition against the concurrent eviction order passed under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act.

2. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is neither plea, nor proof regarding the dilapidated condition of the petition-building, which, according to the learned counsel, is absolutely required to be pleaded and proved pursuant to the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in P.Orr. and Sons (P.) Limited v. M/s.Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, (1990) 2 L. W. 547. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, in this regard, contends that the pleading should not be construed strictly and that at any rate even assuming that the abovesaid plea is not in the petition it was in contemplation between the parties and therefore, the evidence in that regard could be looked into and that the courts below have come to the right conclusion on the evidence recorded. He also cited several decisions, which according to him, would support his abovesaid submission.

3. In the light of the abovesaid rival submissions it is necessary to set out the material portions of the plea as found in the R.C.O.P.

“The respondent is the tenant of the building NMC No.12/49 from the last 15 (fifteen) years......

The building is a non-residential building and the respondent is doing business therein.......

The petitioner is doing business in timber adjacent to the schedule building. For the convenience of the petitioner’s business, the petitioner is in need of an office room. The petitioner, therefore, intends to pull down the entire existingstructure including the petition Schedule building and reconstruct a pucca building.” [Italics supplied] But,as per Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act,eviction could be ordered only if “the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished”.[emphasis supplied]

4. While interpreting the abovesaid Sec.l4(l)(b), the Supreme Court in the above referred to P.Orr. and Sons (P.)Limitedv. M/s. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, (1990)2 L.W. 547, has held as follows:

“We accordingly hold that Sec.l4(l)(b) is satisfied only if the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the” immediate“, Le., direct, sole and timely purpose of demolishing it with a view to erecting a new building on the site of the existing building...... but the essential and overriding consideration which, in the general interests of the public and for the protection of the tenants from unreasonable eviction, the legislature has in mind is the condition of the building that demands timely demolition by reason of the extent of damage to its structure making it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs. While the condition of the building by itself may not necessarily establish the bona fide requirement under Clause (b), that condition is not only one of the various circumstances which may be taken into account by the Controller, but it is the essential condition in the absence of which it would not be possible for the landlord to prove that he has a bona fide requirement which is timely, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building. The Act does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant circumstances, requires demolition.” [Italics supplied]

5. In the above background, it is clear that in the present case, the necessary averments which should be there under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act have not been made at all in the present R.C.O.P. On the other hand it is only averred that the landlord i