Advocates:
['M/S DR G KRISHNAMURTHY', '', 'S L VENKATESAN', 'M ASWIN', 'M/S S VIJAYAKUMAR', '', 'COUNSEL']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.03.2014

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

C.R.P.(NPD)No.117 of 2014

and

M.P.No.1 of 2014

1.M/s Saravana & Co., Partnership Firm

Old No.10, New No.31, Shop No.1 & 2,

Ground Floor, Arya Gowda Road,

West Mambalam, Chennai 33.

2.Mr.R.Natarajan,

Partner M/s Saravana & Co.,

Office at Old No.10, New No.31, Shop No.1 & 2,

Ground Floor, Arya Gowds Road,

West Mambalam, Chennai 33.

3.Mr.N.Jayaraman

Partner M/s Saravana & Co.,

Office at Old No., New No.31, Shop No.1 & 2,

Ground Flood, Arya Gowda Road,

West Mambalam, Chennai 33.

..Petitioners/Appellants, Tenants.

/vs/

Mrs.Lalitha Natarajan,

Old No.11, Jeevanandam Road,

Lakshmipuram, Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai-41.

..Respondent/Petitioner, Landlord.

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil

Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and 18 of 1973 as

amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 to set aside the order

and decree dated 12.08.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Authority

on the file of VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.A.No.183 of

2013 by confirming the judgment order and decretal order dated

15.03.2013 in R.C.O.P.No.2138 of 2011 on the file of X Small Causes

Court Judges allowing the petition under Section 14(2)(b)of the Tamil

Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965 and ordered eviction.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Petitioners

:Dr.G.Krishnamurthy

For Respondent

:Mr.S.Vijayakumar for Caveator

ORDER

The petitioners are tenants under the respondent's premises

in respect of two shop portions bearing Nos.1 & 2 at Old No.10, New

No.31, Arya Gowda Road, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033.

2.

The case of the respondent/landlord before the Rent

Controller Court is that the building in question is in a dilapidated

condition and she requires it for immediate demolition and re-

construction. Moreover, the Kalyana Mandapam, which is located in

the premises, lacks modern facilities, and therefore, she sought for

eviction on the ground of Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as

'the Act'). The petition was contested by the petitioners/tenants.

The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and the same was

confirmed in the appeal. Against the said order only, the present

revision has been filed.

3.

Mr.G.Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners would contend that both the Courts below committed

irregularity by not referring to Section 14(1)(b) of the Act which

prescribes time limit for demolition and reconstruction. Therefore,

it is in violation of the statutory provisions. Further, the learned

counsel for appearing the revision petitioners would submit that in

case the respondent/landlord was given time limit, as per Section 14

(2)(b)of the Act, the petitioners would have had the benefit under

Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, by which the petitioners can prosecute

and punish the landlord/respondent. He would further submit that so

far as the merits are concerned, he is not going to deal with the

same as the possession was already taken after the dismissal of the

said petition by the Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the

petitioners have also filed a suit before the civil Court and an

order of injunction was sought restraining the respondent/landlord

from demolishing the building. He would admit that though the

building had already been demolished, the grievance aired by him is

that the required mandatory provision has not been complied with. On

the above line of the submission, he seeks an order to set aside the

eviction order passed by the lower Courts.

4.

In this connection, the learned counsel for the

petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in R.P.David and

another vs. N.Denial (died) and others reported in [1967 (1) MLJ

p.110], V.P.Selvaraj vs