The court clarified the legal framework for eviction petitions under the Building Lease Rent Control Act, including the consistency of landlord's claims, authority of the power agent, bonafide requirement of the landlord, and the statutory undertaking.

1. This revision, filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Building (Lease and Rent Control ) Act, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2006 passed in R.C.A.No.12 of 2005 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2005 passed in H.R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2003, on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry.

2. The landlord is the petitioner and the respondent is the tenant. The tenancy is in respect of a premises bearing door No.118, St. Gilles Street, Pondicherry which was given on lease to the respondent pursuant to a lease deed dated 08.08.1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.1600/-. The landlord tenant relationship, lease deed and the monthly rent are admitted. The petitioner filed an eviction petition on the ground that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation and that the premises is in dilapidated condition and requires to be re-constructed. In the eviction petition, it was stated that the petitioner was employed in France and after his retirement intends to settle down at Pondicherry permanently which is his birth place and that he does not own any other property. After the petitioner issued legal notice on 23.01.2002, calling upon the respondent to vacate, a reply was sent by the respondent stating that he is not liable for eviction and thereafter, the respondent filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.328 of 2002 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsif, Pondicherry alleging that the petitioner is attempting to forcibly dispossess the respondent. It was further contended that the petition premises is in dilapidated condition and the adjacent property owner on the western side had demolished their superstructure as a result of which, there is no support on the western side and the petition premises may fall down at any time. With the above facts, the petitioner sought for eviction of the respondent/tenant.

3.The respondent resisted the petitioners claim by stating that the period of lease was ten years and initially the rent was fixed at Rs.1,000/- and increased to Rs.1,800/-as per the lease deed dated 08.08.1990 and the tenant is regularly depositing the rent into the bank account of the landlord. It is further stated that an advance of Rs.80,000/-was paid and an additional sum of Rs.16,000/-was paid by cheque to the power agent of the petitioner for carrying out repairs. The contractor appointed for carrying out the repairs abandoned the work and since the power agent could not carry out the repairs, the respondent completed the repairs by incurring additional cost of Rs.53,263/-. It is further contended that though the period of lease came to an end on 23.02.2002, the respondent is a tenant by holding over and also a statutory tenant under the Act. It is further stated that the petitioner filed an earlier eviction petition in RCOP No.72 of 1995, on the ground of committing acts of waste in the petition premises and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 31.10.1997 and the appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed, by the District Court on 09.11.1998. It is further stated that the petitioner is not entitled to get the premises for his personal occupation and none of the ingredients for seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction are present and the plea raised by the petitioner lacks bonafide.

4. Before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioners power agent/elder brother was examined as PW-1, the Manager of Karnataka Bank Limited was examined as PW-2 and one Mr.Ranganathan was examined as PW-3. The petitioner marked 25 documents as Exhibits P1 to P25. Dr.L.N.Rao, the Chief Physician of the respondent was examined as RW-1 and four other witnesses were examined as RW-2 of RW-5 which included two engineers. The respondent marked 16 documents as Exhibits R1 to R16.

5. The learned Rent Controller framed two questions for consideration, namely, (i) whether the pe