Eviction of tenant.

This revision has been preferred under section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act by the landlord whose application under section 14(1)(b) of the Act, for eviction of the respondent with a view to demolish and reconstruct, has been rejected in limine by the authorities below, in the view that the provisions of section 14(1)(b) can be availed of, only when the landlord seeks possession of the entire building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and not when only possession of a part of the building is sought. The brief facts my be stated. The petitioner owns a building in the city with an open terrace. The ground floor is let out to a tenant who is not a party to this proceeding. On the terrace, there is a thatched shed, of which the respondent is stated to be the tenant. The landlord applied for possession of this terrace with the thatched shed under section 14(1)(b), submitting that he intended immediately demolishing the shed and putting up a pucca structure thereon. Whether it is bona fide required by him for demolition and reconstruction has not as a fact been gone into. Learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant does not admit before me that the shed belongs to the landlord. These are questions on the merits. The simple question for consideration now in this revision is whether the petition for possession of this portion of the building which is stated to have been separately let out and is in the occupation of the respondent is maintainable under section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

The authorities below have taken the view that in the context of section 14(1)(b) the building must refer to the entire building and not to any part of it though separately let. Reliance is placed for this contention on the language of section 14(1)(b) which runs thus:

“That the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished.”

The reasoning is that, when reference is made to the word ‘site ‘it can only refer to a building on the ground, that is on terra firma or earth. It is reasoned that the petitioner-landlord must claim and intend, demolishing the building as a whole from the ground; otherwise, it would not come within the scope of section 14(1)(b). Confirmation for this view is sought from the language employed in section 14, sub-clause (2)(b) which runs thus:

“No order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building under this section shall be passed

(a) ..............

(b) on the ground specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building shall be substantially commenced by him not later than one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building or before the expiry of such further period as the Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow.”

Emphasis is laid on the language used in the above sub-clause: ‘entire building ‘.

Now ‘building ‘is defined in the Act in section 2(2) unless the context otherwise requires, thus:

“‘building ‘means any building or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes and includes-

(a) the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building, hut or part of such building or hut and let or to be let along with such building or hut.

(b) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or hut, but does not include a room in a hotel or boarding house;” .

In limiting the scope of section 14(1)(b) the authorities below also appear to be of the view that the Legislature intended to encourage the construction of new houses only in the place of old buildings. It may here be pointed out that this Court h