Madras High Court
P.S.Panchatcharam vs S.Baskara Pandian on 6 April, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 31.03.2023
Pronounced on : 06.04.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015
1.P.S.Panchatcharam
2.Vijayasree Panchatchram .. Petitioners / Respondents /
Petitioners (Landlords)
Vs
S.Baskara Pandian .. Respondent / Appellant /
Respondent (Tenant)
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23/1973 &
1/1990, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2015 made
in R.C.A.No.173 of 2007 on the file of IX Judge, Small Causes Court,
Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree made in RCOP.No.820 of 2006,
dated 01.03.2007 on the file of the XIV Judge (Rent Controller).
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Kempraj
For Respondents : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran
for Mr.M.Balasubramanian
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015
ORDER
1.1 The landlords in R.C.O.P.No.820 of 2006 are the revision petitioners herein. They laid the said RCOP for eviction of the respondent herein under Section 14 (1) (b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The building which the tenant occupies covers a small extent of 80 sq.ft, and in terms of the photograph circulated before this Court, the said construction appears like a bunk shop in one of the corners of the entire property, and abuts a road or a street on both sides.
1.2 In the counter, the respondent / tenant admits the tenancy, and states that the tenancy has commenced in 1976, and was granted to his father, and that after the demise of his father, the tenancy devolved on him, and that he continues to be in possession of the property. So far as the plea of demolition and reconstruction is concerned, he submitted that the building is in sound condition and it does not require any immediate demolition or reconstruction. He also questions the bonafides of landlords. 1.3 The dispute went to trial before the Tribunal, before which the first among the landlords examined himself as P.W.1, besides, he also examined 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015 a civil engineer as P.W.2. They have produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8, of which Ex.P6 is the report of P.W.2. They have also produced Ex.P5, a bank statement to demonstrate the resources for demolishing and reconstructing the property. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and examined his own engineer as R.W.2. He has produced Ex.R1 to Ex.R4, of which Ex.R2 and Ex.R4 are engineers' report. After appreciating the evidence, the Rent Controller relied on the testimony of P.W.2 and Ex.P6, report. Besides the testimony and also considering the age of the building, he came to a conclusion that the landlord's requirement is bonafide and allowed the petition.
1.4.This order of the Rent Controller was challenged by the tenant in R.C.A.No.173 of 2007, where the landlords were visited with a reversal of fortune. The Rent Control Appellate Authority had taken a view on a re- appraisal of the evidence produced by the tenant, more particularly Ex.R1, photograph, that the building of the tenant is in good condition, and that it does not require any demolition or reconstruction. This is now in challenge. 2.1 Heard both sides. The counsel for the revision petitioners / landlords 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015 submitted that the building is in a corner of a larger property abutting a road on both sides and occupies a meagre extent of 80 sq.ft. The landlords evinced interest to develop their entire property by demolishing and reconstructing the entire property of which the building now in question is a part, that they had obtained necessary approvals from the authorities concerned for the same, and had since demolished the entire structure except the portion occupied by the respondent herein, and have put up a massive construction there. He also circulated few photographs of the said building, which includes a stilt + few floors above. The present building is situated along the compound wall of the newly constructed building, where the building involved in the present case could be seen. The learned counsel submitted that in terms of the approved-plan, the portion occupied by the building now in dispute, might have to be surrendered to the Corporation of Chennai, and the Corporation is insisting for the same. He added that the learned Rent Control Appellate Tribunal has merely placed reliance on the condition of the building, but didnot on go into the bonafides of landlords, and the preparation they had taken for demolishing and reconstructing the entire building.
4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015 2.2 Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted that the landlords have made the life of the tenant miserable by demolishing the entire building that surrounds the building occupied by the respondent, and had put up a multi-storeyed structure therein. Arguing further, he submitted that the building occupied by the tenant is in good condition and when the landlords have already put up their construction, there is absolutely no need for demolishing and reconstructing the building in respondent's occupation. 2.3 Both sides filed a plethora of authorities in support of the contentions they advanced. While the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the authorities in Prabhakaran Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. [1987 AIR 2117] and M.Gangabai Ammal v. M.Sarawathamma [ CDJ 2006 MHC 1274], the counsel for the respondents relied on the authorities in S.P.Sabura Begum v. M.K.Thangavelu [1997 (1) CTC 95]; Amaiyappa Transport v. N.S.Rajulu [ 2002 (4) CTC 123]; R.Pappathiammal and 2 others v. Nachammal and 13 others [2001 (1) CTC 160]; C.Rajagopal v. Mrs.Mallika Begum [ 1995 (1) CTC 211]; Mahboob Badsha v. M.Manga Devi [1978 L.W.286]; Bharat Trading Co. v. K.Shanmughasundaram [1995 L.W.258]; M/s.Hussain Lorry Booking Service and 8 others v. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015 A.Sirajuddin [1991-2-L.W.197]; S.Sarawathi Ammal v. R.S.Mallikarjun Raja and others [1997 (I) CTC 280]; Vijay Singh etc. etc. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal [1996 (II) CTC 586]; Ameeruddin and four others v. Premakumari [1995 (I) CTC 340].
3. Arguments of either side are carefully weighed and this Court also perused the various judgements cited at the bar. The law on the point is too firmly settled. It is no more the bonafide requirement of the building to go for an immediate demolition and reconstruction that matters, but also the landlords' need for demolition and reconstruction that is required to be reckoned. Admittedly, the tenancy involved in this case has commenced in 1976, which implies that the building is about 47 years old today, and it is an admitted fact that it was part of a larger building, which has since been demolished, and a new building has been erected in the place of the old building and these facts indicate that the landlords indeed has demonstrated their bonafide need to demolish and reconstruct the property. After all, the landlords are the owners of the property, and they have every right to see that their property is put to best use to enable them to augment his income. The intent of law is not to compel the landlords to do charity, but to balance 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015 the interest of both the parties. Therefore, while the condition of the building may be the criterion, yet it is not the only criterion which the Court is required to reckon for deciding if the tenant must be vacated on the grounds provided under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Indeed, the immortal V.R.Krishna Iyer.J., himself has observed in his inimitable style that an old building among the new, are like the pimples on fair face. This description applies to the present building aptly. There Rent Control Appellate Authority, apparently, had taken a narrow view of the matter and had failed to take into account the bonafide requirement of the landlord and failed to balance the rival interest in the spirit of the statute.
4. In conclusion, this Court finds every reason to interfere with the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as it narrowed down its consideration, merely to the condition of the building and not to other factors. Accordingly, this revision petition stands allowed and the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.173/2007, is set aside and that of the Rent Controller in RCOP.No.820/2006 is restored, and the respondent is directed to vacate and hand over possession within a period of three months from today. No costs.
7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015 Post it for reporting compliance on 07.07.2023.
06.04.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds To:
1. The IX Judge Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer VR Section, High Court, Madras.8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015 N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds Pre-delivery order in C.R.P.No.2209 of 2015 06.04.2023 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis