Requirement for eviction of tenant held not bonafide.

1. This revision is filed by the landlord in R.C.O.P.No.41 of 1986, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Erode.

2. Petition for eviction was filed on the ground that the building in question requires immediate demolition and reconstruction, as stated in paragraph 5 of the petition. It is said that the condition of the building is very bad and the tenant entered into a lease arrangement orally with one Kuppammal in the year 1967 on a monthly rent of Rs.25 It originally belonged to one Karuppanna Chettiars family. In a suit to which the landlord was also a party the same was declared as belonging to him. The tenant was intimated about this by Kuppammal, and after court proceedings, the tenant recognised the right of the landlord and paid rent. The rent was increased from Rs.25 to Rs.55. It is said that the building is very old and weak, the materials like brick and wood are worked out and the entire portion is damaged. It is very difficult and costly for building on the Bazaar Street at Kodumudi on account of increase in prices. Further, the landlord wanted the tenant to deliver vacant possession of the portion in his occupation for demolition and reconstruction. The purpose of reconstruction is to run an ice cream parlour in the new building. The petitioner has undertaken to commence the demolition and reconstruction. The purpose of reconstruction is to run anted that he has got the necessary funds for putting up thee reconstruction.

3. In the counter statement filed by tenant, he contended that the rent payable is not Rs.55, but 50. It is alleged that when the landlord refused to receive the rent, tenant had to file R.C.O.P.No. 15 of 1985, seeking permission to deposit the rent into court. Landlord seriously contested the petition, but it was allowed and it was decided therein that die-rent is Rs.50. The tenant is continuing to deposit the rent in court. The allegation that the building required immediate demolition and reconstruction is also disputed. It is said that the petition is intended only to evict the tenant somehow or other, and that the same is without any bona fides, it is further said that far from the petitioner asking mis tenant alone to vacate the portion his his occupation, it is cleat that the landlord has not come to court with clean hands. It is further contended that from the prior conduct of the landlord, it can be seen that only to evict the tenant, he has filed the petition. In the suit in which the landlord is a party, namely, O.S.N6.23 of 1960, the schedule property was allotted to him. Even though the tenant was in possession, landlord somehow or other, intending to get physical possession, filed execution petition. On coming to know about that, tenant filed an application that he should not be dispossessed. His contention was accepted by court and dispossession was averted. The landlord again interfered with his possession and, therefore, the tenant had to file another suit, namely, O.S.No.588 of 1976 for injunction. The same was seriously contested by the landlord. But in spite of the same, the suit was decree. It was thereafter the tenant had to file an application seeking permission to deposit the rent in court. It is his case that there is enmity between the parties, and it is only to wreak vengeance on the tenant, the present eviction petition has been filed.

4. Rent Controller took oral and documentary evidence. Father of the petitioner, who is his Power of Attorney Agent, was examined as P.W.1. The tenant got himself examined as R.W.1.

5. After evaluating the entire evidence including the Commissioners Report and plan submitted by him, Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord is bona fide. He directed dispossession of the tenant. Rent Controller came to the conclusion that even though there might have been prior proceedings, when the landlord has satisfied the statutory grounds under Sec.l4(l)

(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent