Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 681
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU
D.M. Belgumvala
Versus
M/s. Tamilnadu Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its General Manager
C.R.P.(NPD) No.3081 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on: 18-02-2010
For the Petitioner:P.B. Ramanujam, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for R. Balachandar, Advocate.
Headnote:A. TAMIL NADU BUILDING LEASE AND RENTAL CONTROL ACT, 1960 -
Demolition and Reconstruction - Definition of Premises - Section 2 (e) (1) (i) - There being a single tenancy in respect of land and building - No finding by courts below that land rent alone was accepted by landlord - Rent Control Petition was laid by respondent for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Ground of defense put forth by petitioner is that rent paid by petitioner herein was for land alone since superstructures was raised by petitioner’s father with consent of respondent. Findings of courts below do not support stand of petitioner. There is no material to show that payment made by petitioner was accepted by respondent as land rent. Findings of appellate court below do not give a separate finding, or is there specific mention made towards rental valuation of site on which building stood. Rent was paid by petitioner and accepted by respondent in one unit which is in entirety for premises along with buildings and land appurtenant to them. There was no lease for separate plot of land. Hence proceedings held maintainable with respect to construction made by father of petitioner. Even according to petitioner since superstructure was raised by father of petitioner, petitioner may demolish and take away material prior to eviction. (Para 10 (iv)).
B. TAMIL NADU BUILDING LEASE AND RENTAL CONTROL ACT, 1960 -
Demolition and Reconstruction - Admission of Petitioner - Building was 100 yrs old - Definition of Premises - Petitioner admits damages to buildings - It is clear admission of petitioner that building was over 100 years old. On being confronted with photographs of building petitioner admits that such cracks exist in building. Ex.P20 is a document that will show that kitchen room has collapsed. It is a considered view of court that buildings are fit for demolition. (Para 11&16)
C. TAMIL NADU BUILDING LEASE AND RENTAL CONTROL ACT, 1960 - PETITION FOR EVICTION - ON GROUND OF - DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION - NO SANCTIONED PLAN PRODUCED-NOT MANDATORY CAN BE PRODUCED EVEN BEFORE EXECUTING COURT BEFORE ORDER FOR DELIVERY IS MADE -
It is not mandatory that sanctioned plan shall be produced by landlord before evicting court. Only on plan being sanctioned by local authority, decree for execution shall be made available for execution, and such sanctioned or approved plan shall be produced before executing court, whereupon executing court shall allow a reasonable time to tenant for vacating demised property and delivering possession to landlord decree holder. Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted landlord to produce sanctioned plans along with undertaking before executing court as required under Section 14(2)(b) of Act. (Harrinton House School v. S.M. Ispahani, 2002 (5) SCC 229). (Para 12).
D. TAMIL NADU BUILDING LEASE AND RENTAL CONTROL ACT, 1960 - PETITION FOR EVICTION - ON GROUND OF - DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION DEMISED PREMISES COVERED BY ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IS BETWEEN LANDLORD AND GOVERNMENT AND TENANT HAS NO LOCUS STANDII -
Last defence to ground of eviction that demised premises were subject matter of acquisition. However acquisition proceedings will not come to rescue of tenant. Even otherwise petitioner/ tenant himself has admitted that de hors acquisition proceedings he will have to vacate premises.
(Para 13).
E. TAMILNADU BUILDING LEASE AND RENTAL CONTROL ACT, 1960 - PETITION FOR EVICTION - ON GROUND OF - DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION BONAFIDE INTENTION OF LANDLORD TO EVICT TENANT -
Landlord shall establish his bona fide intention to demolish dilapidated structure, he is entitled to get an order of eviction. Bonafide requirement of landlord can be found by taking into account following factors. (i) Bonafide intention of landlord far from sole object only to get rid of tenants (ii) the age and condition of building (iii) Financial position of landlord to demolish and erect a new building (Vijay Singh v. Vijalakshmiammal, 1996 (6) SCC 475. (Para 16).
Result: CRP Dismissed.
1. The allegations contained in the eviction petition are as follows:-
1. (i) The petitioner is the owner of the demised premises in which the respondent is in occupation as tenant. The premises is known as "ARDESLEY" situate in old Door No.4C (New Door No.15), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600034, consisting of a Bungalow with ground and first floor with servant quarters and garages in new Survey No.126/3 with an extent of 45 grounds. It was purchased by Mrs. Kathija Sultan and her daughter Fatima Sultan from Margurite Irene Walsh by virtue of sale deed dated 04.06.1929. Katheja Sultan bequeathed her half-share in the property in favour of her daughter Fatima Sultan by means of a sale deed dated 09-09-1949. The said Fatima Sultan rented out the Bungalow with an extent of 19.99 grounds out of 45 grounds to M.K. Belgamwala and his wife, who are residing in the first floor and they used ground floor for nonresidential purpose. The petitioner by means of a deed of settlement dated 3. 1973 obtained the property from Fatima Sultan and became the absolute owner. The said Belgamwala continued to be a tenant under the petitioner.
1.(ii) The petitioner filed HRC No.2376 of 1980 for fixation of fair rent in which the age of the building was fixed at 62 years. Since Belgamwala sublet the ground floor, the petitioner initiated eviction proceedings and they were evicted from the ground floor. The eviction order was confirmed by the appellate authority and High Court, Madras. The respondent is legal heir to his parents Mr. and Mrs. Belgamwala and he is continuing to occupy as tenant.
1. (iii) The demised premises is situate in Nungambakkam High Road, next to Taj Coromandel Hotel. The premises is situate in a posh commercial locality and two furlongs from Mount Road Gemini Flyover and Indian Oil Bhawan. It is stone throw distance from the Income Tax and Central Excise offices and also Institute of Chartered Accountants. Many nationalised banks are also situated in the vicinity. Accommodation in this area is very scarce.
1. (iv) Due to age, the premises developed cracks and during recent rains the cracks widened and the building further deteriorated and hence the petitioner asked the respondent to vacate the premises by means of a letter dated 111. 2005, but there was no reply. The building served more than its usage period. The cracks are beyond repairable stage. On 112. 2005 an Engineer from P.W.D. inspected the premises and observed as "It is presumed that the building may not be fit for habitation and recommended for dismantling." Hence the petitioner has decided to demolish the present building immediately and construct a multi storied building in the entire area of 45 grounds including the petition scheduled mentioned property. The petitioner undertakes that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building will be substantially commenced not later than one month and will be completed before the expiry of three months. Hence an order of eviction may be passed against the respondent.
2. In the counter filed by the respondent the following are stated:-
2. (i) The evictionpetition on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is not maintainable in law and on facts. The alleged inspection is without notice to the respondent and hence it is not binding on the respondent in any manner. The contents of the alleged letter dated 1. 2006 are merely self-serving evidence created by the petitioner to evict the respondent from the petition premises. It is incorrect to state that the condition of the building warrants immediate demolition and reconstruction. It is denied that the requirement of the petitioner is bona fide and that the petitioner has the wherewithal to put up a multi-storied building. The petition is totally silent about the steps taken for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction and indicate only a mere desire to demolish and reconstruct which will not establish the bona fides of the petitioner, entitli
