1999 Supreme(Mad) 1096

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

The requirements for a landlord to obtain an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, are that the landlord must give an undertaking to demolish and reconstruct the building, that the landlord must have the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction, and that the landlord must not have any ulterior motives.

Headnote:

LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - BUILDING (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1960 - SECTION 14(1)(B) - REQUIREMENT OF LANDLORD FOR DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION - BONA FIDE - UNDERTAKING - SUFFICIENCY - POWER OF ATTORNEY - VALIDITY - MENTAL CAPACITY OF LANDLORD - AGE AND CONDITION OF BUILDING - FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF LANDLORD - MOTIVE.

Fact of the Case:

The landlords filed two petitions for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground that they required the building for demolition and reconstruction. The tenants resisted the claim, contending that the petitions were not maintainable, that the landlords did not have the necessary undertaking, that one of the landlords was not mentally sound, that the building was not in a dilapidated condition, and that the landlords had ulterior motives.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the landlords had satisfied the requirements of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. It found that the landlords had given a sufficient undertaking to demolish and reconstruct the building, that the power of attorney was valid, that the landlord who was alleged to be mentally unsound was in fact of sound mind, that the building was in a dilapidated condition, that the landlords had the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction, and that the landlords did not have any ulterior motives.

Issues: 1. Whether the landlords had satisfied the requirements of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act? 2. Whether the landlords had given a sufficient undertaking to demolish and reconstruct the building? 3. Whether the power of attorney was valid? 4. Whether the landlord who was alleged to be mentally unsound was in fact of sound mind? 5. Whether the building was in a dilapidated condition? 6. Whether the landlords had the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction? 7. Whether the landlords had any ulterior motives?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the landlords had satisfied the requirements of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. It found that the landlords had given a sufficient undertaking to demolish and reconstruct the building, that the power of attorney was valid, that the landlord who was alleged to be mentally unsound was in fact of sound mind, that the building was in a dilapidated condition, that the landlords had the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction, and that the landlords did not have any ulterior motives. 2. The court held that the landlords had given a sufficient undertaking to demolish and reconstruct the building. It found that the landlords had stated in their petitions that they would undertake to demolish and reconstruct the building within a time to be fixed by the court. The court held that this was a sufficient undertaking, even though it did not reproduce the exact wording of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. 3. The court held that the power of attorney was valid. It found that the power of attorney had been executed by all of the landlords, that it was properly witnessed, and that there was no evidence to suggest that it was invalid. 4. The court held that the landlord who was alleged to be mentally unsound was in fact of sound mind. It found that there was no evidence to support the tenant's claim that the landlord was mentally unsound. The court also found that the landlord had been examined as a witness and that he had appeared to be of sound mind. 5. The court held that the building was in a dilapidated condition. It found that the building was over 100 years old, that it was made of mud walls, and that it had been damaged by white ants. The court also found that the engineer who had inspected the building had reported that it was in a dilapidated condition. 6. The court held that the landlords had the financial capacity to undertake the demolition and reconstruction. It found that the landlords had stated in their petitions that they had sufficient funds to undertake the demolition and reconstruction. The court also found that the landlords had produced evidence to show that they had bank accounts and that they were employed abroad. 7. The court held that the landlords did not have any ulterior motives. It found that the tenants had not produced any evidence to support their claim that the landlords had ulterior motives. The court also found that the landlords had a legitimate need for the building, as they wanted to demolish it and reconstruct it.

Final Decision: The court allowed both revision petitions, setting aside the order of the lower appellate court and restoring the order of the Rent Controller. The petitions for eviction were allowed with costs throughout.