Strict test of pleadings not required.

The unsuccessful tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent landlady filed H.R.C.O.P. No.97 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry praying for the eviction of the petitioner under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1980 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. According to the landlady, the building in question is a brick built structure covered with Asbestos roof in an area of 5 metres east-west and 6 metres north-south, bearing door No.212, Kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry. The superstructure is part of the area under the occupation of the tenant and the remaining portion situate on the north of the said superstructure is vacant. According to the landlady, the demised premises under the occupation of the tenant does not yield good return and as per the present condition, the building cannot be properly utilised. Therefore, she intends to demolish the existing superstructure and construct a new building for better utility and for good return. She has also obtained approval of the Pondicherry Planning Authority and she has issued a lawyer’s notice on 20th September, 1987 calling upon the tenant to vacate the premises. The landlady has enough resources and source of income to bear the expenditure liable to be incurred in the proposed construction of the building. She also undertakes that the work of demolishing the material portion of the building shall substantially commence by her not later than one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date of recovery of possession of the entire building.

2. The eviction petition was resisted by the tenant, who filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the allegations made in the petition. According to him, he has been carrying on business as a tenant since 1964 the father of the landlady and the tenant maintained good relationship, the deceased father of the landlady gave consent to him to carry out all the repair works and alterations in the shop, on the basis of-which, he had also done some alterations, change of flooring, erection of water pump, putting rolling shutters etc., in the said shop and since the landlady has decided to sell the said property to somebody else, there is no bona fide in the requirement of the premises by the landlady for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The shop in question is in good condition and there is no need or necessity for reconstruction, since all the repairs and necessary works have already been done by the tenant himself.

3. Learned Rent Controller at Pondicherry on a careful consideration of the entire materials placed before him ordered eviction, holding that both factually and legally there is no reason for rejecting the claim of the landlady and that therefore the requirement of the premises by the landlady is bona fide and she can get the respondent evicted from the premises for the purpose of demolishing the premises and to construct a new building in its site.

4. The unsuccessful tenant filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge at Pondicherry. Apart from reiterating the various contentions raised before the learned Rent Controller the tenant also has raised the question of title of property on the landlady. According to him, the landlady did not have title to the property and the entirety of the property, of which the demised premises is a part, was the subject matter of the suit for declaration and title and the suit was dismissed on merits by Principal Sub Court. Pondicherry. Therefore, the tenant prayed that the Principal Distract Judge, Pondicherry may remand the matter for fresh inquiry and disposal. On 18. 1994 at the time of argument, a reference was made to the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.223 of 1987, dated 10. 1991 by the Principal Subordinate Judge against which A.S. No.23 of 1994 was pending on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. The H.R.C.O.P. scheduled pro