Judgment:- The tenant whose eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the petitioner in this petition. The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner from the fourth shop in premises No. 19-C, Woods Road, Mount Road, Madras, on grounds of wilful default in payment of rent from September, 1961 to March, 1962 and for demolition and reconstruction. We are not concerned in this petition with the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner submitted that the petition for eviction was not bona fide, that it was filed because he refused to pay the higher rent demanded by the landlord and that the landlord had no intention of demolishing the building for the purpose of constructing a new building.

The Rent Controller on the evidence came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the building for the immediate purpose of demolishing it with a view to erect a new building on the site. He also found that the intention of the landlord was to remove the roof of the building retaining the side walls and that would amount to demolition within the meaning of section 14(1) (b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller also considered a notice given by the landlord (Exhibit R-1) demanding rent and held that the mere demand of higher rent could not negative the bona fides of the landlord.

On appeal, the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and held that the landlord bona fide required the building for the immediate purpose of demolishing it for erecting a new building. He found that the application was bona fide.

In this petition, Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the orders of the lower Court are not sustainable as they failed to take into consideration the material circumstances. He submitted that the Small Causes Judge failed to take note of Exhibit R-1, the notice of the landlord demanding higher rent from the petitioner, and that if the lower appellate Court had taken into account that notice, it would have come to the conclusion that the landlord had no bona fides. The lower appellate Court had taken into consideration the evidence in the case and came to the conclusion that the landlord had proposed to demolish the material portion of the building for the purpose of putting up a new structure. The lower appellate Court was also satisfied that the shop occupied by the petitioner had to be demolished for the purpose of constructing a new building. It is not disputed that the landlord had submitted plans and applied to the Corporation for sanction for putting up a staircase and upstairs above the rooms occupied by other tenants. The fact that the landlord demanded twice the rent by Exhibit R-1 would not make any difference in the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate Court.

Mr. Radhakrishnan next contended that on the evidence all that was proposed was to demolish the roof of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner retaining the two walls and this would not amount to demolition under section 14(1)(b) of the Act. According to him, the demolition should be total. In support of his contention, he relied on a number of decisions. In P.E. Cadle &38 Co. v. Jacmarch Properties,1 it was held that the landlord’s opposition failed since the Word “reconstruct” in section 39(1)(f) of the Act of 1954 meant “rebuild” and the landlords had not proved an intention to rebuild the whole or a substantial part of the premises comprised in the holding (viz., the ground floor and basement), and an intention to effect a change of identity without a physical reconstruction (viz., such a change as would be caused by combining the three floors of the premises into a larger whole by erecting internal staircases) was not enough. In that case, the tenants were in occupation of the ground floor and basement for the purpose of carrying o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document