Landlords must substantiate claims of bonafide requirement for eviction with evidence of need and financial capability, and unregistered powers of attorney are insufficient for legal representation.

ORDER :

1. The unsuccessful landlords whose petition for eviction for demolition and re-construction came to be dismissed concurrently by the Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Appellate Authority, are the revision petitioners.

2. I have heard Mr.G.Ravisankar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Ramanlal, learned counsel appearing respondent/tenant.

3. Mr.G.Ravisankar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petition building belonging to the petitioners comprised of six portions and the petitioners initiated eviction proceedings against all the tenants occupying various portions of the building, on the ground of the building being required for purposes of demolition and re-construction. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the other five tenants against whom eviction petitions were filed on similar lines came to be allowed and as on date all the other tenants have vacated and the respondent is the only tenant occupying the building. The learned counsel would further state that the building is in a very highly dilapidated condition warranting immediate demolition and reconstruction. However, the Courts below have erroneously held that the petitioners have not established bona-fide and consequently, dismissed the Eviction petition.

4. Mr.G.Ravisankar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in a petition for eviction under Section 14 (i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (in short 'Act'), it is not necessary for the landlords to produce currency before the Court and jingle the coins. He would also state that the petitioners have produced the approved plan which clearly indicated their bonafide requirement. He would further state that though the Courts have held that the petitioners have not established that the other tenants have already been evicted and this Court can take judicial notice under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

5. The learned counsel would rely on the following decisions, in support his contentions:-

(i) Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Vs. K.M. Krishnaiah, AIR 1998 SC 1132

(ii) Sridharan Vs. S. Natarajan and others, 2007 (3) CTC 45

6. Per contra, Mr.R.Ramanlal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant would submit that the landlords have not come to Court and they have only appointed a power agent. Even the application to represent the landlords was not properly presented before the Rent Controller and the same was challenged by the respondent/tenant, though he was unsuccessful before the Rent Controller, according to Mr.Ramanlal, in revision, C.R.P. Nos.2764 and 2765 of 2022, this Court reserved the right of the tenant, by cross examining P.W.1. Mr.Ramanlal would further state that despite the directions of this Court, P.W.1 did not offer himself for cross examination and the Courts have therefore rightly drawn adverse inference against the petitioners.

7. It is also the contention of Mr.Ramanlal, learned counsel that the powers of attorney are unregistered and cannot be valid, empowering the power agent to represent the landlords. The learned counsel would further state that the petitioners have not let in any evidence whatsoever, to establish sufficient means to meet the cost of demolition and re- construction, which have been rightly considered by the Courts below. He would further state that even insofar as the plan that was produced by the landlords, through their power agent by filing the reply recei