C.R.P.(NPD).No.4234 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

29.06.2021

Pronounced on

13.07.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

C.R.P.(NPD).No.4234 of 2012

and M.P.No.1 of 2013

1.P.R.Ravikumar

2.P.R.Sukumar

... Petitioners

Vs.

Kandan Metals

Rep. by its Prop.

Swamidoss Augustin

No.5, New No.9/2,

Peddu Naicker Street,

P.T.Madras.

... Respondent

PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 23 (1)(b) of the

Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 and as amended by

Act 23 of 1973, against the fair and decretal Order passed by the learned

Appellate VII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras in R.C.A.No.729 of

2011 dated 02.08.2012.

For Petitioners

:

Mr.R.Bharanidharan

for Ms.S.Revathy Dhamodharan

For Respondent

:

Dr.C.Ravichandran

1/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD).No.4234 of 2012

ORDER

(Heard through video conferencing)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Order of the

learned Appellate VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dated

02.08.2012 in R.C.A.No.729 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.2604 of 2008.

2. The petitioners are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant.

The demised premise has been leased out to the respondent by the petitioner

on rent for the purpose of running his metal shop.

3. The petitioners/landlords have filed a petition against the respondent

for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and demolition

and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the petition on

the ground of wilful default. However, he allowed the petition for eviction on

the ground of demolition and reconstruction. When the respondent/tenant

challenged the said Order of eviction before the Rent Control Authority, the

Appellate Authority set aside the Order of the Rent Controller and allowed

the First Appeal. Aggrieved over that, the landlords have filed this present

Civil Revision Petition.

2/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD).No.4234 of 2012

4. Despite the Eviction Petition got dismissed on the ground of wilful

default, it was allowed on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The

petitioners/landlords did not prefer any cross appeal before the First Appellate

Authority by asserting the ground of wilful default. So it has to be taken now

that the ground on which the landlords claims eviction is only on the ground

of demolition and reconstruction.

5. The respondent is a long standing tenant of the petitioners who is

running a ever silver vessel shop in the demised premises from the year 1975.

The above said facts were not denied by the parties themselves. The

petitioners have submitted that they are in bonafide requirement of the

building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. It is not in dispute

that the building is very old and the said fact was observed by the

Commissioner himself when he inspected the property. Certain observations

made by the Commissioner after inspecting the property would glaringly

show that the condition of the building is very bad. The report of the

Commissioner on this aspect reads as below:-

“5. It is further humbly submitted that the western side outer wall is

running in Thirumalai lane, where the lane is about 5 feet width. The outer

wall is a very old wall may be of 70 to 80 years old. Where plastering has

been fell down in many of the places and where roots of peepal tree had

3/20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(NPD).No.4234 of 2012

developed in the wall making a small plant in some of the places in the wall.

6. It is further submitted that this schedule property is a double

storeyed building where the second floor is partly constructed and it was

closely by asbestos sheet. The western and southern wall running from top to

bottom from ground floor to 2^nd floor in to an extent of about 90 feet

approximate in length wis