Ratio-Necessity to give notice under section 106 of T.P. Act.

The tenant is the petitioner in the revisionn petition. The respondent landlord is the owner of premises No.9 Ritherdon Road, Vepery. He had leased the first floor to one tenant and the ground floor to the petitioner. The respondent had planned to remodel the entire-house at huge cost and also obtained the requisite sanction from the Corpora-tion for remodelling, reconstruction, repairs, etc. The respondent required both the tenants to vacate and hand over possession for carrying out this work. The tenant in the first floor complied with his request and the landlord carried out in the first floor the work of remodelling involving demolition, reconstruction, repairs etc. After this was over, the landlord again pressed and requested the petitioner to vacate and hand over the ground floor so that the work may be completed. Correspondence passed bet-ween the parties and as the tenant declined to vacate, the landlord filed a petition under section 14(1)(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease) and Rent Control) Act of 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act for obtaining possession of the premises on the ground that the land-lord required the same for demolition and reconstruction.

2. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that this was not a case of demolition and reconstruction, but was only a case of repairs coming under section 14(1)(a) of the Act.

3. The landlord took up the matter to the appellate authority who reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and held that the nature of the work planned by the landlord was substantially demolition and reconstruction and that he was entitled to possession under section (1) (b). Hence the tenant has preferred this revision petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner (tenant) raised two points;

1. That the landlord can seek possession under section 14 (1)(b) only if total demolition of the building is proposed by the landlord, and that in the instant case, the proposed changes did not involve any structural alterations and that the case would be governed by section 14(1) (a) only.

2. That the landlord has not given the requisite notice terminating the lease, as required by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the petition for eviction, therefore, was not maintainable.

5. Mr. A. Dorairaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that there is an essential distinction between section 14 (1)(a) and section 14(1)(b), that section 14(1)(b) would apply only if the entire building is demolished and a new "building is put up on the site, and that whatever may be the fresh work which the landlord may propose to carry out, even if it involved substantial alterations, would not attract section 14(1)(b) unless there is a demolition of the existing building and a new building reconstructed on the site. Learned Counsel laid considerable stress on the use of the words "demolition" ‘erecting a new building’ and ‘on the site of the building’ in sub-clause (6) as emphasising that mere extensive nature of the work done is not decisive of the question. He also urged that section 14(2)(b), which fixes a time-limit within which the work of demolition should be commenced, also tends to the same inference; according to the learned Counsel section 14(2)(b) refers to the demolition of a material portion of the building within a period one month, thereby suggesting that section 14(1)(b) means demolition of the entire building leaving only the site for putting up the new building; while section 14(2)(b) fixes a time-limit for the commencement of the demolition of a material portion of the building, - a process towards the demolition of the entire building indicated in section 14 (1) (b).

6. Mr. V. Thyagarajan, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that it is not necessary that the entire building should be demolished so as to demolish even the walls, that it is sufficient if the fresh work proposed by the landlord is of such a nature as to materially and su