Building in dilapidated condition.Land lord capable for its renovation.

1. These two revision petitions are filed by two tenants occupying portions of the same building against orders of eviction passed against them. The respondent landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.27 of 1992 against the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.1752 of 1997 for eviction on the ground that he required the property for the immediate purpose of demolition and putting up a new building in the site. His case was as follows: The revision petitioner became his tenant in respect of a portion of the building and the monthly rent was Rs.150. The building was nearly 100 years old. The flooring wall and the roof were in a most dilapidated condition and the building required immediate demolition and reconstruction. He wanted to put up a new construction with a view to augment his income. He had been calling upon the revision petitioner to vacate the building for the past over six months prior to the filing of the Rent Control Original Petition. The petitioner assured mat he would vacate the premises in the Tamil month of Thai 1992, but for reasons best known to him, the petitioner had sent a sum of Rs.200 as if the respondent had demanded enhanced rent. On 20.2.1992, as the respondent issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to vacate the premises and handover possession. The petitioner though received the notice did not comply with the demand nor did he send any reply to the notice. The respondent had sufficient funds to put up the new construction.

2. The petitioner resisted the Rent Control Original petition contending inter alia as follows: He became a tenant in 1979 in respect of the property subject matter of the proceedings on a monthly rent of Rs.45. The rent was being enhanced periodically and lastly the petitioner was paying Rs.150 p.m. The respondent demanded an enhanced rent at Rs.400 from January, 1992. The revision petitioner stated that his final order was Rs.200 p.m. and sent the same by Money Order for the month of January, 1992. The respondent set a registered notice, dated 20.2.1992. The revision petitioner duly sent a reply on 25.2.1992 and the excess of Rs.50 was adjusted in the rent for the month of January, 1992 and thereafter, the revision petitioner was continuing to pay at the rate of Rs.150 p.m. The object of the respondent was only to extract higher rent from the revision petitioner. The building was structurally sound and did not require any demolition. Even though the respondent did not carry out the usual maintenance as he was bound to, the revision petitioner was spending out of his pocket doing the maintenance work at his own cost and keeping the building in a state of disrepair. The averment in the petition mat the respondent wanted to augment his income by demolition and putting up a new building was not a ground for demolition under Sec.14(1) (b). The revision petitioner never assured the respondent that he would vacate the building. The petition itself was only a ruse to throw out the revision petitioner and to sell the property for huge price. The application was not bona fide and admittedly no steps had been taken for putting up a new building. The means of the respondent was also disputed. The petitioner prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.

3. The facts in C.R.P.No.1910 of 1997 are almost identical. It is not necessary to set out the details of the contentions of the respective parties. The respondent in both the revision petitions is the same. The building is a single building and portions were occupied by the respective revision petitioners. The Rent Controller by his order, dated 9.3.1995 accepted the case of the respondent-landlord in both the eviction petitions and ordered eviction. The petitioners filed R.C.A.Nos.6 and 7 of 1995 respectively. The appellate authority also concurred with the decision of the Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction. Aggrieved, the present revision petitions have been filed.

4. Mr.S.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the revision pet