Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
Venugapal & Others
Versus
Fathima Beevi & Another
C.R.P. Nos. 108, 150 to 152, 173 to 175, 228, 262, 267 to 269, 272, 365 & 387 of 1991 respectively
Decided On :Decided On : 19-04-1996
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - BUILDING REQUIRING IMMEDIATE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION - PHYSICAL CONDITION OF BUILDING - BONA FIDES OF LANDLORD - MEANS OF LANDLORD - REVISION - SCOPE OF REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Landlords sought eviction of various occupants on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petitions, but the same was reversed by the Appellate Authority. The legality of the judgment of the Appellate Authority is challenged in these Revisions.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the entire evidence and has held that there is no circumstance to find that the case of the landlords lacks bona fides. All the material circumstances have been taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority. Whether the landlords have come to court with bona fides or not is also a finding of fact with which the Revisional Court will be slow to interfere.
Issues: 1. Whether the physical condition of the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction? 2. Whether the landlords have the bona fides to seek eviction? 3. Whether the landlords have the means to carry out the demolition and reconstruction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The physical condition of the building is a relevant factor to be considered for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, but it is not the sole ground. The condition of the building need not have deteriorated to the extent of the building being in danger of crumbling down, but it should indicate a bona fide requirement for the timely, genuine, and direct purpose of demolition and reconstruction. 2. Bona fides is a question of fact to be determined based on the evidence. The landlord's intention for demolition and reconstruction is relevant, and the age and dilapidated condition of the building are not sine qua non for eviction. 3. The landlord's means to carry out the demolition and reconstruction is a relevant factor, but it does not require the landlord to have liquid cash in hand. The court should consider whether the landlord has the capacity or means to raise funds and complete the project as envisaged.
Final Decision: All the C.R.Ps. are dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
1. All these Revisions are by tenants occupying portions of the main structure.
2. Landlords sought eviction of various occupants on the ground that the building requires immediate deolition and reconstruction.
3. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petitions, but the same was reverised by the Appellate Authority. The legality of the judgment of the Appellate Authority is challenged in these Revisions.
4. The material averments in all the eviction petitions are the same, except regarding the rate of rent with which we are not concerned in these Revisions.
5. Regarding the requirement for demolition and reconstruction, the case put forward by the landlords is that there is a multi-storeyed building, the front portion of which is roofed with Madras Terrace and the rear portion is Madras Terrace and Mangalore titled. The building is constructed with brick and lime and plastered with cement, and country wood is used throughout. It is further said that the entire building has developed cracks and in the northern and eastern portion the parent wall has gone out of shape and is sagging. There are horizontal crevices and vertical crevices on the facade of the building and in the rooms. Due to substandard construction, the roof is leaky and the condition of the balcony is alarming. The leakage of water has resulted in damages to number of joints and the roof itself is caved and cracked. A portion of the balcony has already fallen and has been temporarily reconstructed, and in other partions, the roof is caving in. Consequently, number of cracks have developed in the building and the rear portion is likely to collapse at any time. Further, due to faulty construction and bad workmanship and substandard specifications, the front portion of the building is also in danger of imminent collapse as it cannot take the weight of additional load. In major portion, temporary country wood has been provided as joints to support the cross-beams to prevent the roof collapsing. Further, wiring has been exposed in several portions which may result in short circuiting of the place. The cross-beams are eaten away by white ants and are likely to collapse at any time. There is water logging on the balcony and on the ground floor resulting in innumerable cracks throughout the building. The building is thus in a highly dilapidated and ruinous condition, and it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. It is further averred by the landlords that they applied to the Corporation of Madras, for demolition of the building and the same has been granted by the Authorities, and they have also paid the demolition charges to the Corporation of Madras, and the plan for demolition has been approved and sanctioned by them. It is also said that they have got means to demolish and reconstruct the building in question. Landlords issued notices to various tenants, asking them to surrender the respective portion of the building occupied by them. It is further said that for better investment, and for improvement of the place, demolition and reconstruction is absolutely necessary. They have also undertaken that they will commence demolition of the building within one month and the same will be completed within three months from the date of recovery of possession.
6. In the counter statement, they dispute the various averments in the petition and according to them the building is not old, nor does it require demolition and reconstruction. The various averments regarding the condition of the building are also denied. They said that the landlords themselves moved the Corporation for getting the building demolished. They also dispute the means of the landlords for putting up the construction. They also say they during November 1994, there was a storm and cyclonic weather, and if the building was in a bad shape, the same would not have survived the cyclonic weather, and since it has survived, the allegation regarding the condition of the building is proved to be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
