Madras High Court
S. Thangaswamy vs R. Vinayakamurthy on 1 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)CTC105, (1996)IIMLJ322
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan
ORDER AR. Lakshmanan, J.
1. The tenant has filed the above civil revision petition against the concurrent findings of both the authorities below, ordering eviction of the petitioner on the question of denial of title and also for demolition and re-construction of the property in question.
2. The respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 1986 under Section 14(1)(b) and under Section 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The plea of the landlord was that the building was required for demolition and re-construction. The petition was resisted by the tenant contending that the petition was lacking in bona fides. The Rent Controller on consideration of law and facts ordered eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 6 of 1989 and the same was dismissed on 20.2.1991 granting a month's time. Aggrieved by the orders of the appellate authority confirming the orders of the Rent Controller, the petitioner has preferred the above civil revision petition.
3. I have carefully gone through the entire pleadings filed by both the sides and also of the orders of the authorities below impugned in this revision.
4. The landlord in his petition filed for eviction of the tenant stated that the petitioner is a tenant of the non-residential building and that he has executed a lease deed dated 1.1.1962. It is also stated that door Nos. 51, 52 and 53 belong to the landlord and all the three buildings have a common superstructure and they are very old buildings more than 50 years of age and arc in bad state of affairs. A portion of the building is a tiled one. The petitioner also has given an undertaking that he would commence the demolition work within a month from the date of getting possession and complete the reconstruction of the building within three months thereafter. He issued notice to the petitioner herein on 4.6.1986 and he sent a reply. It is also stated further by the landlord that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord and that the denial is wilful, as it is evident from the counter-affidavit. Therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted on this ground as well.
5. The tenant filed a counter-statement stating that the building in question is an inalienable trust property endowed by one Nagaiya Chettiar by his deed dated 14.1.1920, that the property has been absolutely dedicated for the purpose of religious charities pertaining to Sri Srinivasa Perumal Temple at Kodavasal and that the respondent has no authority to purchase the same and the alleged purchase itself is void ab initio and hence the landlord has no title at all to the property in question. It is pertinent to mention here that these facts have not been mentioned at all in the reply notice sent by the petitioner-tenant. As regards the requirement of the building for demolition and re-construction, the tenant has only stated in his counter-affidavit that the building is old, but not in a bad shape or condition and therefore, the requirement for demolition is not bona fide. It is further contended that eventhough the petitioner herein is the tenant, of the building for the past 50 years even from the father's time of the tenant having taken the same from the heirs of Nagaiya Chettiar on a monthly rental basis and have been paying the rent to them successively. However, it is stated that the tenant has been paying the rent to the landlord only by mistake thinking that he has title to the property. The purchase by the respondent/landlord herein does not confer any title nor is it an admission of his title. The landlord having purchased the property wants to enrich himself more by taking proceedings and evicting the tenant.
6. The Rent Controller, Nannilam, by his order dated 24.2.1989, on a consideration of the entire materials placed before him both oral and documentary has ordered eviction. Before the Rent Controller, Exs. Al to A6 were filed by the respondent/landlord and on the side of the tenant, Ex.Bl was filed. The landlord has examined himself as P.W.I and the tenant as R.W.I. While ordering eviction, learned Rent Controller himself had referred to the evidence of the tenant in regard to the age of the building as 70 to 80 years. The court below has also referred to the undertaking given by the landlord to demolish the building within one month and to re-construct the same within three months thereafter. The court below has also specifically held that the requirement of the building for the purpose of demolition and re-construction is bona fide and that the denial of title by the tenant is mala fide.
7. The appellate authority also held that the requirement by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and that the denial of title by the tenant is not bona fide and the appellate court has also clearly observed in its order that the tenant has been paying the rent to the landlord after the death of his father.
8. Mr. K. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the norm set out by the catena of decisions of this court regarding the application for demolition and re-construction had not been complied with and no Commissioner was appointed by the court to satisfy itself about the bona fide of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed before this court any authority or citation either of this Court or of the Supreme Court in support of the above contention. It is further contended that the denial on the part of the tenant is bona fide and that both the courts have failed to satisfy themselves about the valid claim of the landlord in order to come to an independent conclusion on this aspect of the matter. Finally it is argued that the mere age of the building is not sufficient to uphold the claim for eviction and the physical features are to be proved before the courts before ordering eviction.
9. I am unable to countenance any one of the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. Eventhough the petitioner was a party respondent before the Rent Controller, he has not disputed or denied the age of the building. According to the counter filed by the tenant, he has only stated that though the building is old, but not in a bad shape or condition. Except this, he has not stated anything about the nature or condition of the building. Nothing prevented the tenant from requesting the court to appoint a Commissioner in order to show that the building does not require immediate purpose of demolition and re- construction. In this case, the petitioner has specifically stated in his counter that the petitioner's father was a tenant for the past 50 years and after his death, the petitioner has been paying the rent to the landlord. However, the petitioner has been paying the rent to the landlord only by mistake that he has title to the property. I am unable to appreciate the stand taken by the tenant in denying the title of the present landlord. Having paid the rent and having recognised him as the landlord, it is hot open to the petitioner herein to deny the title of the landlord, which in my opinion is nothing but wilful.
10. In my opinion, non-examination of a Commissioner or an Engineer, is not fatal to the case of the respondent herein. Likewise, the motive for demolition and reconstruction is wholly irrelevant in a petition for eviction under Section 14(l)(b). As rightly contended by learned counsel for the landlord, Section 14(l)(b) of the Act is not rendered inapplicable merely because building is not old or dilapidated, but is in good condition. In other words, if the intention of the landlord is proved to be genuine, and not spurious or specious, the landlord would be entitled to obtain an order for eviction under Section 14(l)(b) of the Act, whether or not the condition of the building is such as to require immediate demolition, the age and dilapidated condition of the building not being sine qua non for such eviction. It is well established in this case that the means of the landlord to carry out the work of demolition and reconstruction is a relevant factor to be taken note of by this Court and considered while testing his bona fides. In my opinion, in order to satisfy the test under Section 14(l)(b) of the Act, the condition of the building need not have deteriorated to the extent of the building being in danger of crumbling down but the condition must be such as to indicate a bona fide requirement for the timely, genuine and direct purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The tenant, in my opinion, has miserably failed to establish that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and on the question of denial of their title. As already observed, the denial by the tenant is not bona fide. Having paid the rent and having recognised the respondent herein as the landlord, it is not open to the petitioner herein to deny his title. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the denial of title is mala fide. There are no merits in the revision petition. Therefore, the civil revision petition fails and it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.