Madras High Court
V.Mani vs Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers on 17 July, 2012
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.07.2012
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2281 of 2008
V.Mani ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers
Co-operative Society Limited
rep.by its Regional Manager
Cuddalore.
2. The Branch Manager
Co-optex, Thirukovilur ... Respondents
Civil revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 as against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2005 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Villupuram in R.C.A.No.4 of 2004 reversing the order and decree dated 23.07.2004 in RCOP No.1 of 2003 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Thirukovilur.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Bharathi
for M/s.Muthumani Doraisami
For Respondents : Mr.N.Thiyagarajan
ORDER
Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2005 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Villupuram in R.C.A.No.4 of 2004 in reversing the order and decree dated 23.07.2004 in RCOP No.1 of 2003 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Thirukovilur, civil revision petition is focussed by the landlord.
2. A thumbnail sketch absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
(i) The revision petitioner/landlord filed the RCOP No.1 of 2003 1999 seeking eviction of the respondents/tenants on the grounds of additional accommodation and for demolition and reconstruction by invoking Sections 10(3) (c) and 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act.
(ii) The tenants resisted the RCOP.
(iii) During enquiry, the revision petitioner/landlord examined himself as PW1 and marked and Exs.A1 to A3. On the side of the respondents/tenants, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked and the Court documents Ex.C1 was also marked.
(iv) Ultimately, the Rent controller ordered eviction on both the grounds.
(v) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, the tenants preferred appeal. Whereupon, the appellate forum set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the RCOP.
(vi) Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, this revision has been preferred by the landlord on various grounds.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord would pyramid his argument, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:
a] The appellate authority misunderstanding the provisions of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act set aside the reasoned order of the learned Rent controller warranting interference in this revision.
b] The Commissioner's report bespeaks and betokens the dilapidated nature of the building, which itself is of more than 60 years' old.
c] The landlord even though was having two other show rooms in the same city, wanted additional accommodation by having his textile shop in the demised premises after erasing the existing building and constructing a new one. As such, the learned Rent Controller passed a reasoned order; however, the appellate authority without assigning any valid reason, simply upset the findings and dismissed the RCOP warranting interference in this revision.
5. Whereas in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner/landlord, the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants would pilot his argument, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:
(i) Invocation of Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act was a misconceived one in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(ii) There is nothing to indicate and exemplify that the landlord as on the date of filing of the RCOP was in possession of a portion of the building, in which the tenants are occupying. In such a case, the landlord should not have invoked Section 10 (3) (c ) of the Act.
(iii) There is no proof to show that the building is in such a dilapidated condition, warranting demolition and no bona fides found exemplified in the evidence, except the commissioner's report.
(iv) There is no evidence at all to show that the building requires demolition and reconstruction.
The learned counsel for the respondents/tenants would pray for the dismissal of the revision petition by further contending that the appellate authority passed a reasoned judgment in dismissing the RCOP after setting aside the order of the Rent Controller.
6. The points for consideration are as under:
1. Whether the plea of additional accommodation based on Section 10 (3) (c ) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in the facts and circumstances of this case is a misconceived one?
2. Whether the appellate authority was justified in setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissing the RCOP by giving a finding that there was no proof to show that the building was in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition?
7. At the out set itself, I would like to highlight and spotlight the fact that the very narration in para 3 of the RCOP would disentitle the landlord from invoking Section 10 (3) (c ) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which is extracted here under for ready reference:
"10. Eviction of tenants
1. ............
2. ............
3.(a) ............
(b) ............
( c) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, may, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be."
A mere reading of the aforesaid provision would shed light on the fact that if at all the landlord is in occupation of any portion of the building, in which the demised premises is located, the question of seeking eviction on the ground of additional accommodation would arise and not in a case like this.
8. It is not the case of the landlord that he was in occupation of the part of the building in which the demised premises is found located. Hence, on the ground of additional accommodation, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants, the RCOP has to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, Point No.1 is decided in favour of the respondents/tenants and as against the revision petitioner/landlord.
10. I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decisions emerged under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act and certain excerpts from those decisions would run thus:
(i) (2002)3 M.L.J.130(S.C.) - HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL VS. S.M.ISPAHANI AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
8. ..........................." A procedure can be devised to protect the interest of both the tenant and the landlord, specially by taking care of the apprehension expressed by the tenant that the property may remain lying unconstructed inspite of being vacated by the tenant and followed by demolition if the plans for proposed construction are not sanctioned by the local authority. The decree as passed by the High Court is sustained but it is directed that the landlords shall submit the plans of re-construction for the approval of the local authority. Only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authority the decree for eviction shall be available for execution. Such sanctioned or approved plans shall be produced before the Executing Court whereupon the Execution Court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and delivering possession to the landlord-decree holders. Till then the tenant shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the suit premises at the same rate at which they are being paid along with the plans the landlords shall also file an undertaking before the Executing Court as required by Clause (b) of Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.14 of the Act."
(ii) 2006(2) CTC 615 [SC] S.VENUGOPAL VS. A.KARRUPPUSAMI AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"7. On the question of demolition and reconstruction of the premises in question, much was sought to be made out of the fact that the condition of the building had not been ascertained and, while according to the tenants it was not in a dilapidated condition, according to the landlord it was in a dilapidated condition. We do not attach much importance to the question as to whether the building was or was not in a dilapidated condition because Section 14(1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') contemplates a building which is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it, and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. Therefore, Section 14(1)(b) does not contemplate that the building sought to be demolished must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition. Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site.
8. In the instant case, it is obvious that the locality in which the premises in question is located has developed into a commercial locality. The building needed by the landlord is a single storey building, whereas a large number of multi-storied buildings have come up in that locality. The landlord realises that if he demolishes the old structure and erects a new multi-storied building, he will get a much better return of his investment. He, of course, asserts that in the newly constructed building also he requires space for conducting his own business.
10. It is true that in granting permission under Section 14(1) (b) of the Act, all relevant materials for recording a finding about the requirement of the landlord for demolishing the building and reconstruction of a new building, have to be taken into account. The Rent Controller reached the conclusion that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction of a new building. This Court has observed in Vijay Singh and Others vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, 1996(2) CTC 586: 1996(6) SCC 475, that the Court must take into account the bona fide intention of the landlord, the age and condition of the building, and the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into account and, they are by no means conclusive."
11. In the instant case, we find that the property owned by the landlord, whatever may have been its value in the past, has acquired commercial value and, therefore, the landlord wishes to demolish the old single storey structure and to construct a multi-storied building, which may fetch him higher rent, apart from serving his own needs. The landlord had already applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved. Taking into consideration all these reasons, we are convinced that the landlord bona fide intends to demolish the old building and to construct a new one. Raising funds for erecting a structure in a commercial centre is not at all difficult when a large number of builders, financiers as well as banks are willing to advance funds to erect new structures in commercial areas. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was willing to invest a sum of Rs.One and a half lakh of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs."
(iii) (2002) 4 SCC 437 [R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Venkatesha Gupta and others].
"13. ........However, in view of the time that has already been lost in the litigation and to protect the interest of the tenants and certain to allay their fears, it is directed that the executing court shall, before directing the tenants to be evicted and possession being given to the landlord, direct the landlord to file plans of proposed construction, duly approved by the local authority, and give an undertaking in terms of Section 14(2)(b) of the Act. No order as to costs."
A plain reading of those decisions would unambiguously and unequivocally spotlight and display the fact that it is not necessary that the building concerned should be down at heels or in a dilapidated condition out and out,, for the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and re-construction. The law also has got settled that before the Executing Court the current building plan approval could be filed and satisfy the court and thereafter obtain delivery order.
11. Regarding financial wherewithal of the landlord is concerned, so far this case is concerned, it is clear that he is undoubtedly a textile merchant having two textile show rooms in two places, one at the North Street and another at Chinna Kadai Street and in fact, he wanted to have an additional show room in the demised premises after getting the existing building demolished and erecting a new one.
12. Here also the landlord may be directed to produce the fixed deposit receipts, bank pass book or some other evidence before the executing court to satisfy his immediate financial wherewithal to carry out the construction after demolishing the existing one in the demised premises.
13. The learned counsel for the landlord inviting the attention of this court to the Commissioner's report would appositely and appropriately, convincingly and legally point out that the Commissioner in his report highlighted the fact that the rafters got damaged and the building was more than 50 years' old and the bona fide of the landlord is writ large in the evidence.
14. At this juncture, I would like to point out that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord that the landlord does not require the building for being demolished and raise a new one and that he should get satisfied with whatever income he derives from the demised premises. However, the appellate authority without adverting to all these precedents as well as the law points, simply assumed and presumed as though the lower court was not justified in ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and re-construction, warranting interference in this revision.
15. Accordingly, Point No.2 is decided in favour of the landlord and as against the tenants.
16. In the result, this civil revision petition is partly allowed by confirming the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in dismissing the RCOP based on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (c ) of the Act and the order of the appellate authority is set aside in respect of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction, consequently, the order of the Rent Controller on that ground shall stand restored. The revision petitioner/landlord shall produce the current approval plan of the building as well as the bank passbook etc. before the Executing Court anterior to getting delivery order. No costs.
17. On hearing the order, the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants would make an extempore submission to the effect that sufficient time might be granted, so to say, up to January 2013 for vacating the demised premises and hand over vacant possession of the same.
18. I could see considerable force in his submission. Accordingly, I would like to grant time till the end of January 2013 to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord, subject to payment of arrears of rent, if any and also future rents without any default regularly till handing over possession of the demised premises concerned. The respondents/ tenants shall file an affidavit to that effect within 15 days from today.
vj2 17.07.2012
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram
2. The Principal District Munsif, Thirukovilur
G.RAJASURIA,J.
vj2
CRP NPD No.2281 of 2008
17.07.2012