Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 886
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
Mr.M.Ramakrishna - Petitioner
Versus
N.Vijayalakshmi Rep.by her Power of Attorney, Mr.N.Parthasarathy - Respondent
C.R.P.Nos.3407, 3409, 3410, 3411 & 3467 of 2022 and C.M.P.Nos.18114, 18118, 18123, 18126 & 18491 of 2022
Decided On : 09-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.T.Viswanatha Rao
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Prasanna Vineeth Durai
The landlord is entitled to obtain an order of eviction under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act if the intention for demolition and reconstruction is genuine, regardless of the condition of the building.
Headnote:
Eviction - Demolition and Reconstruction - Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act - Section 14 (1) (b)
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed for eviction of the tenants for demolition and reconstruction of the building, which was confirmed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The tenants argued that an Advocate Commissioner should have been appointed to examine the building's condition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the building was more than 50 years old and in a dilapidated condition. The intention of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction was established, and the Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Issues: The main issue was whether the landlord's grounds for eviction under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act were valid, and whether an Advocate Commissioner should have been appointed to examine the building's condition.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the motive for demolition and reconstruction is irrelevant in a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act. The age and dilapidated condition of the building are not necessary for such eviction if the landlord's intention is genuine.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, and the tenants were granted four months to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the landlord.
ORDER :
The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed to set-aside the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2022 passed in R.C.A.Nos.826, 825, 824, 823 of 2022 and 337 of 2019 by the Hon’ble VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the orders and decrees dated 08.10.2018 in R.C.O.P.Nos.133, 132, 131, 130 & 136 of 2014 by the Rent Controller (Hon’ble X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) respectively.
2. The petitioners are the tenants under the respondent. The petitioners are paying the rent regularly and there is no arrears of rent due to the respondent/landlord. On earlier occasion, the respondent/landlord filed a petition for fixation of fair rent for the portion of the premises occupied by the revision petitioners, contending that the premises was in good and tenantable condition. Accordingly, fair rent was fixed and the rent fixed was being paid by the revision petitioners without any arrears. While so, the respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.Nos.133, 132, 131, 130 & 136 of 2014 before the Rent Controller (Hon’ble X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) for eviction of the premises rented out. The reason for eviction as stated by the respondent/landlord is for demolition and reconstruction of the building. The Rent Control Original Petitions filed by the respondent/landlord were allowed and the revision petitioners / tenants filed Rent Control Appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which were as also dismissed, against which, the present revision petitions are filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners mainly contended that though the building is old and in a dilapidated condition, the trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that the Advocate Commissioner was not appointed to examine the condition of the building. Per contra, Civil Engineer-s report was taken into consideration in order to support the case of the respondent/landlord and thus, the orders are perverse and to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners are of an opinion that beyond the report of the Civil Engineer, which was relied upon by the Courts, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner became just and necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the condition of the building, which was not done by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court and therefore, the revision petitions are to be considered.
5. The revision petitioners have stated that they are small traders in occupation of the rented building and leading their livelihood and vacating the premises would cause serious loss to them.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord objected the said contentions by stating that the subject building is more than 50 years old and in a dilapidated condition. In respect of the portion of the building, the other tenants vacated and handed over the possession, since the building was not in good condition. When the other tenants have vacated the premises as the building was in a bad condition, the respondent instituted the proceedings for eviction of the remaining tenants. The trial Court considered the report of the Civil Engineer and arrived a conclusion that the building is in a bad condition and therefore, there is no safety in respect of the occupants. The trial Court considered the report of the Civil Engineer and also considered the age of the building and accordingly, directed for eviction, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord further contended that the revision petitioners have already fixed alternate accommodation and running the business in the other premises and therefore, there may not be any difficulty for them to vacate and handover the premises to the respondent/landlord.
8. Considering the arguments, it is not in dispute that the revision petitioners are tenants. Further, it is not in dispute that the building is aged more than 50 years. The su
