Undertaking to demolish and reconstruct the building given by landlord.

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of orders passed in execution of an order for eviction passed under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The tenants are the petitioners before me. In H.R.C. No. 2508 of 1961 the landlord of the premises now in questions, one Asgar Ali Dhala sought to evict the petitioners on the ground that the building required immediate demolition and reconstruction. While filing the application, he gave the undertaking required of him by section 14 (2) (b) of the Act stating that the work of demolition of the material portion of the building would be substantially commenced by him not later than one month and would be completed before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building. The tenants agreed to give vacant possession and accordingly an order by consent was passed by which the tenants were directed to deliver possession to the landlord by 31st December, 1962. Even before that date arrived, Asgar Ali sold the building to one Satyanarayana Prasad who is the respondent in these petitions. Satyanarayana taking advantage of the order procured by his predecessor-in-title, filed an application in execution out of which these Civil Revision Petitions arise for enforcing the order of the Rent Controller for eviction. That was successful and the petitioners were directed to deliver possession. They have now filed the Revision Petitions challenging the order of the Executing Court.

The contention urged by Mr. R. V. Seshadri, on behalf of the tenants is that the original order passed on the basis of the undertaking given under section 14 (2) (4) of the Act must be regarded only as personal to the applicant and that it cannot be availed of by his successor-in-interest. This contention is sought to be supported by reference to section 14 (2) (6) and section 33 (3) (b). Section 14 (2) (b) requires the landlord to give an undertaking that the work of demolishing the building will be commenced within one month of the delivery of possession to him. Section 33 (3) (b) provides penalty for not conforming to the undertaking. In the present case the tenants have not yet delivered vacant possession and the question whether the landlord is going to fulfil the terms of his undertaking or not cannot now fall for consideration. But it is argued that inasmuch as the sanction provided under section 33 (3) (b) can only be against the person giving the undertaking, the present landlord Satyanarayan will not be bound by that undertaking and the penalty provided in section 33 (3) (b) will not be available against him.

That may be so. If there be default in the performance of the obligations undertaken under section 14 (2) (4) Asgar Ali, the previous landlord can certainly be proceeded against under section 33 (3) (b). It will be his duty to see that his vendee implements the undertaking given by him. The statute has imposed stringent conditions before the landlord who lets out his building to a tenant can recover possession of the same. But at the same time there is nothing in it which prohibits the former from disposing of the property in the way in which he is entitled to under the law. For example, there is nothing in the statute which says that the landlord cannot sell his property because he has filed an application for eviction of his tenant or has obtained an order for the same. In other words, the fact that an application for eviction of the tenant has been filed on the ground that the building required immediate demolition and reconstruction cannot also take away the power of the landlord under the general law to transfer the building in any manner he may choose. A landlord who satisfied the Controller that the building required immediate demolition and reconstruction and obtains an order will be bound to comply with the undertaking. If he sells the property, the sale is not invalid ; nor will the order for eviction be deemed to lapse.