Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH
S.M. Ispahani and another
Versus
Harrington House School by its Hon.
C.R.P. No. 975 of 1996
Decided On :Decided on : 24-12-1999
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - BUILDING - DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - AGE AND CONDITION OF BUILDING - FINANCIAL POSITION OF LANDLORD - RELEVANT FACTORS - SECTION 14(1)(B) OF THE TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1960.
Fact of the Case:
The landlords sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the petition, holding that the requirement of the petitioners was not bona fide, that they had not taken any steps for getting any plan approved by the authorities concerned, and that serious hardship would be caused to the respondent if eviction was to be ordered.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the requirement of the landlords was bona fide, that the age and condition of the building satisfied the requirements set down by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, that the landlords had the means to raise the funds for putting up a multi-storeyed building in the property, and that the non-production of a plan and license could not be put against the landlords. The court also held that the authorities below had clearly erred in rejecting the claim under Section 14(1)(b) and that an order of eviction should have been granted.
Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of the landlords for demolition and reconstruction was bona fide? 2. Whether the age and condition of the building satisfied the requirements set down by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court? 3. Whether the landlords had the means to raise the funds for putting up a multi-storeyed building in the property? 4. Whether the non-production of a plan and license could be put against the landlords? 5. Whether the authorities below had clearly erred in rejecting the claim under Section 14(1)(b)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The bona fide requirement of the landlords is the ultimate test for invoking Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. 2. The age and condition of the building, along with other factors, must be taken into consideration to determine whether the requirement is bona fide. 3. The financial position of the landlord is a relevant factor to be considered in determining whether the requirement is bona fide. 4. The non-production of a plan and license cannot be put against the landlords, as the court can take judicial notice of the fact that even if a plan is filed in the court at the time of the eviction petition, it cannot remain valid till the possession of the building is obtained by the landlords.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and granted an order of eviction against the respondent, subject to the filing of an affidavit of undertaking with the usual default clause within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The respondent was granted six months time to quit and deliver vacant possession.
1. The landlords are the revision petitioners. They sought the eviction of the respondent/tenant under Section 14 (l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for demolition and reconstruction.
2. The contents of the petition are as follows:
The property belongs to the petitioners, is of an extent of 22 grounds 1000 sq.ft. of land with a main building consisting of ground floor and first floor, servant quarters-cum-garage, watchmans quarters; comprised in Rs.No. 126/3 & 14 in Block No. 21 Nungambakkam. It is situate 150 ft. from Nungambakkam High Road. The property was let out to the respondent on a monthly rental of Rs.5,750, and the respondent is running a school mainly for the expatriates in the premises. There was an earlier petition filed in R.C.O.P.No.844of 1982 by the revision petitions for fixation of fair rent at s.26,356 per month. The authorities fixed the fair rent at Rs. 19,897.60 with effect from 16.2.1982. At the time of filing the R.C.O.P. the matter was pending in C.R.P. No. 5082 of 1983 in this Court. The property is situate in a residential-cum-commercial locality. In and around the petition premises multi-storeyed buildings have come up. The petitioners in order to cope-up with the development in the area and to have better utilization and better income, and considering the location and extent of the property have decided to put-up multi-storeyed buildings in the property. They sent a letter on 6.3.88 calling upon the respondent herein to deliver vacant possession of the premises by the expiry of 31.4.1988. The letter was acknowledged by the respondent on 30.3.1988.There was no reply sent nor was the demand complied with. The petitioners bonafide require the premises for the purpose of developing the property by erecting his Product is Licensed to multi-storeyed superstructures by demolishing the present structures. They have the necessary wherewithal to finance the construction of the proposed multi storeyed buildings in the property. The eviction of the respondent is therefore sought.
3. The respondent filed a counter to the following effects the petition has been filed because of a misunderstanding between the previous chair person and the first petitioner. The allegation that there are multi-storeyed buildings around the petition premises is false. It is also not stated in the petition that the petitioners have means to put up the building, that they cannot let in evidence to fill up the lacuna. They have not even said that they have applied for demolition and reconstruction. Therefore the requirement is not bonafide. The maintenance of the building is done by the respondent. Ever since the commencement of the tenancy, the petitioners never came forward for the maintenance of the building and respondent/school itself had been maintaining and colour washing every year and even as and when necessary and the same is in good condition. The notice sent by the petitioners had been misplaced and that was why reply could not be sent. The building itself had been leased- out for running a school and it cannot be converted into a multi-storeyed building. There are about 500 students studying in the school and if eviction is ordered, the respondent and the students would be put to much hardship.
4. The second petitioner and one Selvarajan were examined as P.Ws.l and 2 and Exs.P.l to P.20 were marked on their side. On the side of the of respondent one Swaminathan was examined as R.W.1 and one Srinivasan as R.W.2. The respondent has marked Exs.R.l to R.4.
5. The learned X Small Causes Judge (Rent Controller), Chennai, framed the necessary points for consideration and held that the requirement of the petitioners was not bona fide, that they had not taken any steps for getting any plan approved by the authorities concerned that serious hardship would be caused to the respondent if eviction was to be ordered. The Rent Controller also found that the application for eviction had not 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
