Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 28454
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
,
tenant – Appellant
Versus
landlords – Respondent
R.C.O.P.No.121 of 2018|R.C.O.P.No.123 of 2018|R.C.A.Nos.163 and 112 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.V.Vijaya Baskar
For the Respondents: Mr.S.R.Rajagopal
Eviction under Section 14(1)(b) can be granted based on bona fide landlord's intention and building age alone, without requiring prior demolition permission or dilapidation proof.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Section 14(1)(b) - Eviction on grounds of demolition and reconstruction of building - Bonafide requirement of landlord - Building age and landlord's financial capacity relevant for eviction - Permission for demolition not necessary prior to eviction petition. (Paras 3, 14, 15, 18)
(B) The bona fide intention of landlord, the age and condition of the building, and financial capability to rebuild are illustrative factors for eviction under Section 14(1)(b). The building need not be dilapidated but age alone can justify eviction. (Paras 14, 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
Tenant challenged eviction ordered by Rent Controller and appellate authority based on landlord's ground that premises required for demolition and reconstruction. The premises are non-residential commercial shops, leased at monthly rent with advance paid. Tenant contended building was strong and did not require demolition. Landlord sought possession citing building's age and need for redevelopment.
Findings of Court:
Concurrent findings that premises required immediate demolition and bona fide requirement of landlord established. Permission for demolition prior to eviction not mandatory. Landlord’s undertaking to commence construction after demolition satisfied legal requirement.
Issues: Whether eviction under Section 14(1)(b) is justified without building being dilapidated; whether landlord’s bona fide requirement was established.
Ratio Decidendi: Eviction can be granted on basis of building age and bona fide landlord’s requirement to demolish and reconstruct; the building need not be dilapidated. Permission from authorities for demolition can be obtained anytime, not necessarily before eviction petition. (Paras 14-18)
Result: Revision petitions dismissed with direction to tenant to vacate premises within stipulated time.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of tenancy and grounds for eviction under rent control act (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contentions of tenant and landlords regarding eviction and bona fide requirement (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of landlord's entitlement based on building age and bona fide requirement (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. reliance on supreme court precedent to clarify eviction criteria under section 14(1)(b) (Para 18) |
| 5. final ruling and directions for tenant to vacate premises (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
COMMON ORDER
The present revision petitions have been filed by the tenant challenging the concurrent findings of eviction ordered by the Rent Controller as well as by the appellate authority. The respondents in the revision petitions are the landlords.
2. The parties in the revisions will hereinafter be referred to as per their jural relationship as tenant and landlords for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present civil revision petition are as follows:
(i) The tenanted premises are non-residential character. The landlords filed two original petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [for short “the Rent Control Act”] for eviction of the tenant from two different premises bearing Shop Nos.5 & 7 in the premises situated at Door No.44, Malaperumal Street, Chennai 600 001 on the ground that the premises require for demolition and reconstruction.
(ii) The subject shops were let out on a monthly rent of Rs.5550/-. for each A sum of Rs.99,000/- in respect each premises paid by the tenant as advance. The landlords pleaded in the eviction petition that the subject premises are more than 80 years old and that the same are not yielding income commensurate to the present-day value and hence, they decided to demolish the entire commercial complex and put up a new construction to augment the income as the same would benefit them in all aspects.
4. The tenant filed his counter inter alia contending that no basic amenities, like water and drainage except electricity, are available . There is only one common restroom on the first floor for the entire commercial complex. The property is aged about 50 years and there is no crack or leakage in the ground and first floors. The building consisting of the tenanted premises is very strong, and the same does not require immediate demolition and reconstruction. Even if permission is granted, it would be very difficult for the landlords to get the construction completed in time.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the parties let in oral and documentary evidence in the eviction petitions separately. The abovementioned eviction petitions were taken up by the rent controller for enquiry separately. (i) During the enquiry of the eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.121 of 2018, on the side of the landlords, the 2nd respondent-T.Badrinath examined himself as P.W.1 and in support of his claim he examined one M.Ajeez Mohideen as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and on the side of the tenant, the tenant himself examined as R.W.1 and support of his defense, he examined one A.Sivakumar as R.W.2 and marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4; (ii) Similarly, during the enquiry of the other eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.123 of 2018, on the side of the landlords, the 2nd respondent-T.Badrinath examined himself as P.W.1 and in support of his claim he examined one M.Ajeez Mohideen as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and on the side of the tenant, the tenant himself examined as R.W.1 and support of his defense, he examined one A.Sivakumar as R.W.2 and marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.
6. Upon considering the available evidence, the rent controller found that the tenanted premises are required for immediate demolition and reconstruction and that the landlords have established their bonafide requirement in terms of the section and as such, the learned rent controller had ordered for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises. A
