Plea of demolition and reconstruction of building held irrelevant.

The tenant has filed the above civil revision petition against the concurrent findings of both the authorities below, ordering eviction of the petitioner on the question of denial of title and also for demolition and reconstruction of the property in question.

2.The respondent here in filed R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1986 under Sec.14(1)(b) and under Sec.10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The plea of the landlord was that the building was required for demolition and reconstruction. The petition was lacking in bona fides. The Rent Controller on consideration of law and fact ordered eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant preferred R.C.A.No.6 of 1989 and the same was dismissed on 20.2.1991 granting a month’s time. Aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Authority confirming the orders of the Rent Controller, the petitioner has preferred the above civil revision petition.

3.I have carefully gone through the entire pleadings filed by both the sides and also of the orders of the authorities below impugned in this revision.

4. The landlord is his petition filed for eviction of the tenant stated that the petitioner is a tenant of the nonresidential building and that he has executed a lease deed dated 1. 1962. It is also stated that Door Nos.51,52 and 53 belong to the landlord and all the three buildings have a common superstructure and they are very old buildings more than 50 years of age and are in bad state of affairs. A portion of the building is a tiled one. The petitioner also has given an undertaking that he would commence the demolition work within a month from the date of getting possession and complete the reconstruction of the building within three months thereafter. He issued notice to the petitioner herein on 6. 1986 and he sent a reply. It is also stated further by the landlord that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord and that the denial is wilful, as it is evident from the counter affidavit. Therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted on this ground as well.

5. The tenant filed a counter statement stating that the building in question is an inalienable trust property endowed by one Nagaiya Chettiar by his deed dated 11. 1920. that the property has been absolutely dedicated for the purpose of religious charities pertaining to Sri Srini vasa Perumal Temple at Kodavasal and that the respondent has no authority to purchase the same and the alleged purchase itself is void ab initio and hence the landlord has no title at all to the property in question. It is pertinent to mention here that these facts have not been mentioned at all in the reply notice sent by the petitioner-tenant. As regards the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction, the tenant has only stated in his counter-affidavit that the building is old, but not in a bad shape or condition and therefore, the requirement for demolition is not bona fide. It is further contended that even though the petitioner herein is the tenant, of the building for the past 50 years even from the father’s time of the tenant having taken the same from the heirs of Nagaiya Chettiar on a monthly rental basis and have been paying the rent to them successively, However, it is stated that the tenant has been paying the rent to the landlord only by mistake thinking that he has title to the property. The purchase by the respondent/ landlord herein does not confer any title nor is it an admission of his title. The landlord having purchased the property wants to enrich himself more by taking proceedings and evicting the tenant.‘

6. The Rent Controller, Nannilam by his order dated 22. 1989, on a consideration of the entire materials placed before him both oral and documentary has ordered eviction. Before the Rent Controller, Exs.A-1 to A-6 were filed by the respondent/landlord and on the side of the tenant, Ex.B1 was filed. The landlord has examined himself as P.W.I and the te