1999 Supreme(Mad) 1094

High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice
Akbar Ali and others
Versus
Donian Rodrigo and another
C.R.P. Nos. 2216 and 2217 of 1991
Decided On :Decided On : 20-10-1999

A landlord is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, if the landlord gives an undertaking to demolish the building within a time to be fixed by the court, the requirement is bona fide, and the landlord has the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction.

Headnote:

EVICTION - BUILDING LEASE AND RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 14(1)(B) - LANDLORD'S REQUIREMENT FOR DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION - UNDERTAKING - VALIDITY - POWER OF ATTORNEY - MENTAL CAPACITY OF LANDLORD - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - FINANCIAL CAPACITY - MOTIVE - APPROACH OF COURT.

Fact of the Case:

Two civil revision petitions were filed by the landlords against the tenants for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The landlords sought eviction on the ground that they required the building for demolition and reconstruction. The tenants resisted the claim, contending that the petition was not maintainable, the power of attorney was not genuine, one of the petitioners was not mentally sound, the requirement was not bona fide, and the landlords did not have the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the landlords had satisfied the requirements of Section 14(2)(b) of the Act by giving an undertaking to demolish the building within a time to be fixed by the court. The court also held that the power of attorney was valid and that the landlords had the mental capacity to file the petition. Further, the court found that the requirement of the landlords was bona fide and that they had the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction. The court rejected the tenants' contention that the motive of the landlords was to sell the property or to extract higher rent.

Issues: 1. Whether the landlords had satisfied the requirements of Section 14(2)(b) of the Act by giving an undertaking to demolish the building within a time to be fixed by the court? 2. Whether the power of attorney was valid? 3. Whether the landlords had the mental capacity to file the petition? 4. Whether the requirement of the landlords was bona fide? 5. Whether the landlords had the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction? 6. Whether the motive of the landlords was to sell the property or to extract higher rent?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the landlords had satisfied the requirements of Section 14(2)(b) of the Act by giving an undertaking to demolish the building within a time to be fixed by the court. The court relied on the decisions in Radhakrishnan v. Rajendran and others, Jameema Beevi v. Easwarlal Patel, Thayammal v. K. Subramanian, and Alamelu Ammal v. Visalkshi Ammal to hold that a landlord's undertaking to demolish the building within a time prescribed by the court is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Act. 2. The court held that the power of attorney was valid. The court relied on the decisions in Ehasn Bivi and others v. Nagalakshmi ammal and Sriram Pasricha v. Jagannate to hold that a co-owner is entitled to file an application for eviction and that the written consent of other co-owners is not necessary. 3. The court held that the landlords had the mental capacity to file the petition. The court found that there was no evidence to support the tenants' contention that one of the petitioners was of unsound mind. 4. The court held that the requirement of the landlords was bona fide. The court relied on the decisions in Mamboob Badsha v. M. Manga Devi and another, Chandrasekara Chettiyer v. Kakumani Adikesavalu Chettys Charities, Sha Manakchand v. Sankarji Moolchand, Narasinga Konar v. S.A.C. Chirtambalam Chettiar, Lakshmanan and others v. Kanniammal alias Pattammal, Sultan Sheriff alias Basha v. Hassan Mohideen and others, Narayanaswami Iyer v. Ramakrishna Iyer, Daniel Parthasarathy v. Manickavasagam, Bharath Trading Co., v. Shanmugasundaram, Ammal Pillai and others v. M/s. Varadarajulu Complex etc., and Vijay Singh etc., v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal to hold that the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human habitation in order for the landlord to be entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. 5. The court held that the landlords had the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction. The court relied on the decisions in Vijay Singh etc., v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal and Lakshman, A and others v. Kanniammal @ Pattammal to hold that it is not necessary for the landlord to have all the necessary arrangements for demolition and reconstruction in place on the date of filing the application. 6. The court held that the motive of the landlords was not to sell the property or to extract higher rent. The court relied on the decisions in M/s. P.ORR & Sons Limited v. M/s. Associated Publishers, Lakshman, A and others v. Kanniammal @ Pattammal, and Thangaswamy v. R. Vinayakamurthy to hold that the motive of the landlord is irrelevant if the requirement is genuine.

Final Decision: The court allowed both revision petitions, set aside the order of the lower appellate court, and restored the order of the Rent controller. The court held that the landlords were entitled to an order of eviction.