Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3374
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.Ilangovan, J.
A.P.N.B.Aravendan – Petitioner
Versus
B.Ravi – Respondent
C.R.P.(MD)No.1113 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD).No.6189 of 2024
Decided On : 24-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Sivakumar
For the Respondent: Mr. D.Senthil
The age of a building is a valid ground for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, regardless of its current condition.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act - Section 14(1)(b) - Eviction petition filed for demolition and reconstruction of an old building - Landlord's intention to demolish for personal occupation upheld despite tenant's resistance - Court emphasized that the age of the building justifies eviction, and financial capacity of the landlord is sufficient for reconstruction. (Paras 1, 2, 10, 15)
(B) Legal principles established: The age of the building is a valid ground for eviction under Section 14(1)(b), and the necessity of a building being in a dilapidated condition is not a prerequisite for such eviction. (Paras 12, 13)
(C) The court ruled that the tenant's financial position and the landlord's undertaking to demolish were sufficient to justify eviction. (Paras 15)
Facts of the case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a 100-year-old building, citing its age and his intention to construct a new structure for personal use. The tenant contested the eviction, claiming no structural issues existed.
Findings of Court:
The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority found sufficient grounds for eviction based on the age of the building and landlord's financial capacity.
Issues: Whether the age of the building and landlord's financial capability justify eviction under Section 14(1)(b).
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the age of the building is a legitimate ground for eviction and does not require the building to be in immediate danger of collapse.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
ORDER :
G.Ilangovan, J.
This revision petition has been filed to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated 25.07.2023, passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar and the order and decree dated 19.09.2018 passed in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2015, on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Virudhunagar.
2.The facts in brief:
R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2015 was filed by the respondent seeking the relief of eviction under Section 14 (1) (b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control on the following facts and circumstances.
2.1.The original rent was Rs.1,500/- per month. It was agreed that the Rent must be paid on or before 5th of succeeding month. Apart from that it is also admitted that the tenant should not sublease the property and other usual conditions were imposed.
2.2.The buildings bearing door No.18 to 20 situated on the north and south belongs to him. All the three buildings are aged about 100 years. Construction is also old; Put up with lime mortar and sithukal. There is heavy cracks in the building.
2.3.Previously he was working in Kerala. After retirement he wants to put up new construction by demolishing the present structure for his own occupation. Two tenants namely on the north and south vacated the building. In spite of the request made by him, revision petitioner did not vacate the premises.
2.4.Now he is working in a private concern as Manager and getting a monthly salary Rs.80,000/-. His wife is also self employed. Apart from that his son is also employed in a private concern and so he is having sufficient fund for demolishing and reconstructing the premises. He has also given undertaking that within three months he will demolish and reconstruct.
3.It was resisted by the revision petitioner stating that the intention of the respondent herein is to evict him at any cost. The condition of the building as stated by the respondent is also denied. It is located in a very small lane area. There is no proper access for the vehicles. The landlord was insisting upon the revision petitioner to purchase the building. Because of difference of opinion regarding the purchase price this petition is filed.
4.At the conclusion of the enquiry process, the Rent Controller allowed the petition. Against which R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed by the revision petitioner. It concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Against which this revision is preferred.
5.Heard both sides.
6.Now let us straight away go to the Commissioner Report, wherein, we find the following findings.
7.The chartered civil engineer assisted the Commissioner to value the age of the building and the structure. As per his opinion the age of the building is 77 years; Normal life span of a building with the specifications mentioned in his report will be 60 years. So according to him, the building out lived its life span. But the building looks good. But it can fall at any time. Now this Commissioner report prima facie does indicate that the age of the building is more than 77 years built with lime mortar and old bricks. Even though it is stated by the respondent that crackers developed, but Commissioner report does not indicate. Though the structure of the building looks good, but, it may fall at any time because of the old age.
8.Now we will go to the evidence of the Commissioner. He was examined as PW2. He reiterated his findings in the evidence. Nothing was brought on record by cross examination to discredit his evidence and findings. It has been simply suggested to him that no scientific evaluation was done by him.
9.Only on the ground of the age of the building, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority ordered eviction. Whether any thing is required to be interfered by this revisional court is the only point to be considered.
10.Even at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that no cracks have developed i
