Chandra Reddy, C.J.- .

In the revision cases filed by the agrrieved landlords against the judgment of the Court of Small Causes at Madras in H.R.A. Nos. 122 and 123 of 1963 the controversy centres around section 14 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the Rules. The petitioners purchased the ground and premises Nos. 111 and 112, Kodambakkam High Road Madras on 16th February, 1961, from the former owner for a sum of about three lakhs of rupees Thereafter they required by a notice the tenants in occupation of the building standing on the land, including the respondent, to deliver vacant possession of the premises in their occupation for the reasons mentioned therein the chief of it being that they were required for demolition and rebuilding. As they did not succeed in obtaining vacant possession of the same they initiated the proceedings giving rise to these appeals before the House Rent Controller, Madras.

It was inter alia stated in the petition that after purchase the petitioners applied to the Corporation of Madras for sanction of the lay out plan for premises Nos. 111 and 112, Kodambakkam High Road, preliminary to the construction of new buildings. But the Corporation had written to say that the plan would be sanctioned only after the existing buildings were demolished. It was in such a situation with the idea of demolishing the buildings for reconstruction, that the petitioner called upon the respondent by their notice dated 14th August, 1961, to vacate the premises

The petitions were opposed on the objection that the rent for the buildings in question being in excess of Rs. 250 it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to entertain the petitions, and that in any event as the allegation regarding demolition and reconstruction having been put forward for the first time in the present petition it was not bona fide. This opposition of the respondent did not prevail with the Rent Controller. On the materials before him he came to the conclusion that there were two tenancies for Rs. 250 and Rs. 100 respectively and as such it did not fall within the ambit of section 30 of the Act and that being so the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was not ousted in this behalf, and that the building was bona fide required by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction.

Against that judgment the tenant carried an appeal to the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The Appellate Authority while agreeing with the conclusion of the Rent Controller, that the rent paid for each of the tenancies did not exceed Rs. 250 came to the conclusion that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. However, he reversed the decision of the Rent Controller in the view that in the petition for eviction the landlords had not averred that the buildings were old and required for demolition and reconstruction and that further they had not fully decided as to whether they should construct a cinema theated or a hotel on the site of the present building and that a part of the new building may be used for residence. Says the learned Judge.

“ It is improbable that the respondents without even finally deciding about the nature of the construction to be put up by them on the site of the present building whether a cinema theatre or a hotel would require the building for demolition.”

Consequently he found that the respondent’s request was not true and bona fide.

In these revision petitions filed by the landlord this opinion of the Appellate Authority is impugned by Sri Tiruvengadachari. It is urged by learned Counsel that as the buildings were required for demolition and reconstruction it was not necessary to prove that they were old and decrepit and as such have to be pulled down. All that was necessary to make out was, that the landlords genuinely required the buildings for demolition and reconstruction. He also assailed the view of the learned Judge as to bona fides on the ground that it is opposed to the evidence on record an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document