Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1634
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
Dhanasekarapandian – Appellant
Versus
Aminammal – Respondent
C.R.P (NPD) No. 992 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 18-03-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M.V. Venkataseshan, Advocate.
Eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act does not require the building to be dilapidated, and the landlord's bona fide need for demolition and reconstruction must be established based on various factors including the age and condition of the building, the landlord's financial position, and the general interest of the public.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 14(1)(b), Section 16 - 1996 (6) SCC 475 - 2007 (1) CTC 617 - 2002 (4) SCC 437
Fact of the Case:
The landlady initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, claiming the need to demolish and reconstruct the building for modernization and increased revenue. The tenant opposed, denying the landlady's title and the maintainability of the eviction petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlady had established her title and the bona fide need for demolition and reconstruction. It held that the building need not be dilapidated for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) and relied on precedents to support its decision.
Issues: The issues involved the landlady's title, the tenant's possession, and the bona fide need for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 14(1)(b) and Section 16, emphasizing that the building need not be dilapidated for eviction. It considered factors such as the age and condition of the building, the landlord's financial position, and the general interest of the public.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, upholding the eviction orders and confirming the landlady's bona fide need for demolition and reconstruction.
1. This revision arises out of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Mannargudi) in RCA No.1 of 2013 confirming the order of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Mannargudi).
2. The unsuccessful tenant in the eviction proceedings is the revision petitioner. The respondent initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (b) of Tamil Nadu Buidlings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The case of the landlady is that she purchased the petition premises by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1988 from one Pakkir Mohideen and at the time of purchase, there was a thatched structure with walls constructed by bricks and sands were in existence. Subsequently, the landlady removed the thatched roof and put up a cement sheet; that the tenant was inducted by her vendor on a monthly rent of Rs.350/- and after her purchase, the rent was enhanced to Rs.750/- and after a period of three years, it was enhanced to Rs.1000/-.
3. The landlady has further averred that the building is situated in the main busy locality of Mannargudi Town and if a new building is constructed with modern facilities, the value of the property and its income would be more, that the landlady has already obtained approved plan and permission from the local body for construction of a new building. Since the tenant owns adjacent building bearing Door No.35, no prejudice would be caused to him if he is evicted.
4. The eviction petition was opposed by the tenant stating that he does not know the purchase made by the landlady from Mr.Pakkir Mohideen on 15.06.1988, that he was in possession of the property and doing business for more than 35 years without any rental agreement and without paying any rent. One Mr.Abdul Rahim received Rs.65,000/- from the tenant on 14.09.1979 agreeing to execute sale deed in his favour, however due to illness, he could not execute the sale deed. The tenant further denied the title of the landlady and stated that the eviction petition is not maintainable.
5. To fortify their rival contentions, parties have examined themselves as PW1 & RW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and R1 to R3. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in RCA No.1 of 2013. Questioning the concurrent finding, the present revision is filed.
6. Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlady has not examined the engineer to prove the age and stability of the building; that the landlady had not proved her financial position for demolishing and reconstructing the building; that the landlady has not established the relationship of the parties and therefore the eviction petition has to fail.
7. It is seen that the landlady has purchased the petition premises by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1988 under Ex.P2. After purchase, mutation of revenue record was effected and the property tax was transferred in the name of the landlady under Ex.P3 dated 17.11.2009. Ex.P8 is the lease agreement entered into between the original owner Pakkir Mohideen and the respondent/tenant. Ex.P9 is the lease agreement entered into between the landlady and the tenant. Ex.P10 is the rental receipts for payment of rent by the tenant to the landlady. RW1, the tenant in his evidence has admitted that his father became the tenant of the petition premises in the year 1954.
8. Though the tenant has contended that he has been in possession in pursuance of the oral agreement of sale on payment of advance amount of Rs.65,000/- to the original land owner Abdul Rahman, however the tenant has not produced any material to establish his case. Further, the tenant has not instituted a suit to get the sale deed executed in his favour. In the absence of evidence on the side of the tenant to prove that he was in possession of the petition premises in pursuance of the original agreement of sale, the Rent Controller, relying on t
