Legality of bifurcation and compartmentalization with regards to parts of the same buildings.

T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.

1. Both the tenant and the landlord aggrieved against the legality, regularity and propriety of the order of the learned District Judge of West Thanjavur, have filed these two revision petitions, the former being the one filed by the tenant and the latter by the landlord. It is unnecessary to repeat the entire facts which have been clearly stated by the learned District Judge in his order. Suffice it however to observe the relevant details.

2. The tenant, petitioner in C.R.P. No. 112 of 1965, was occupying the premises in question in its entirety from 1956. The premises, however, contained two distinct compartments, one the front portion thereof which was used for non-residential purposes, and the other the back portion which was at all times being used for residential purposes. In or about 1962, the tenant (petitioner in C.R.P. No. 112 of 1965, and respondent in C.R.P. No. 1620 of 1965) and the landlord (respondent in C.R.P. No. 112 of 1965, and petitioner C.R.P. No. 1620 of 1965) entered into an arrangement whereby the front portion which was delimited and delineated by mutual understanding, was to be demolished and reconstructed, and on such reconstruction the landlord was to re-let the same to the tenant on an increased rent. The other material portions of the arrangement between the tenant and the landlord need not be stated as it is not necessary. The tenant, in fact, advanced moneys to the landlord to enable him to demolish and reconstruct the front portion as agreed to. Indeed a mortgage, Exhibit B-l, dated 21st May, 1962, was executed for the purpose. Later, due to differences between the tenant and the landlord, the arrangement was not implemented. The landlord thereafter filed an application under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, including the back portion on the ground that he required the building for demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller allowed the petition. The Appellate Authority, however, disagreeing with the Rent Controller, set aside the order of the Rent Controller. On revision to the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur, he was of the view that regard should be had to the anterior arrangement entered into between the landlord and the tenant and to that extent at least the bona fides of the landlord to demolish and reconstruct the front portion of the building is established and having regard to the difference between the provisions of Sections 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (b), came to the conclusion that the supervening intention of the landlord in seeking eviction of the tenant from the back, portion of the building appears to be oblique and. lacking in bona fides. He ultimately came to the conclusion that in so far as the claim of the landlord to evict the tenant from the front portion of the building which was delineated and demarcated by both the parties was concerned it was well founded and bona fide and therefore ordered the eviction of the tenant from that portion of the building; as regards the back portion of the building, the claim of the landlord was negatived. Against this order of the learned District Judge, both the tenant and the landlord have come up in revision.

3. At the outset it is necessary to observe the statutory provision which enables a landlord to file an application for eviction for demolition and reconstruction of his building in the occupation of a tenant. Section 14 (1) (b) speaking of recovery of possession by a landlord for reconstruction, provides that on an application made by a landlord the Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building; sought to be demolished, pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord, before a sp