Madras High Court
Ruthramani vs Deenadhayalu Pillai on 4 August, 2010
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.08.2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD).No.2393 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Ruthramani ... Petitioner vs. Deenadhayalu Pillai ... Respondent This civil revision petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair and decretal order made in RCA No.3 of 2008 dated 10.12.2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Mayiladuthurai in confirming the fair and decretal order passed in RCOP No.22 of 2002 dated 24.04.2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller) Mayiladuthurai. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Muthukumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Sounthar O R D E R
Animadverting upon the order dated 10.12.2009 passed in RCA No.3 of 2008 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Mayiladuthurai in confirming the order 24.04.2008 passed in RCOP No.22 of 2002 by the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller) Mayiladuthurai, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
(i) The respondent/landlord filed the RCOP No.22 of 2002 seeking eviction on the grounds of demolition and reconstruction, by invoking Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act [herein after referred to as 'the Act']. The matter was contested.
(ii) During enquiry, on the side of the landlord, one Dhanapal was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the tenant, she examined herself as R.W.1, along with R.W.2, Sambandam and R.W.3, Ahmad and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked. Ultimately the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Being aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of both the Courts below, this revision has been filed on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that the orders of both the Courts below would reveal that they failed to take into consideration the fact that there were no bona fides on the part of the landlord in seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. At the first instance, the landlord gave notice as though the demised premises was required for his personal occupation, but within a month, he sent another notice stating that the demised premises was required for demolition and reconstruction. Even though the landlord would contend that he obtained the planning permission for demolition and reconstruction, no plan was produced before the Court. The landlord is interested in getting higher rent and not for actually demolishing and reconstructing the building. In fact, the landlord even during the pendency of the RCOP, attempted forcibly to evict the tenant. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below and for dismissal of the RCOP.
5. Per contra, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the tenant, the learned counsel for the landlord would advance his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus:
Both the Courts below properly appreciated the evidence by applying the correct provision of law. The law is well settled that even before the E.P. Court, the approved plan could be filed and delivery could be sought. Simply because within a short period the landlord sent the second notice stating that he wanted the premises for demolition and reconstruction, no mala fides could be attributed. The learned counsel for the tenant also would submit that both the Courts below adverted to the fact that it is an admitted fact that out of nineteen tenants who occupied the landlord's building, eighteen tenants vacated the premises and those portions were demolished, except the present tenant's portion. Accordingly the learned counsel for the landlord prays for the dismissal of the revision petition.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction of the demised premises is a bona fide one? and whether there is any perversity or illegality on the part of the Court in ordering eviction?
7. I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(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 teh 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 S.VENUGOPAL VS..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.
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."
A mere poring over and perusal of the aforesaid decisions would amply make the point clear that it is not necessary for the Rent Controller to give a finding that the demised premises is in a dilapidated condition and that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. However, what the Court is expected to do is that it should see for evidence showing that the landlord is in bona fide requirement of the building which may not be that much lucrative as that of a new building proposed to be put up in the area concerned.
8. The contention on the side of the learned counsel for the tenant that the notice dated 10.11.2001 would speak to the effect that the landlord was in requirement of the demised premises for his personal occupation, however quite antithetical to it, hardly within a month as per the notice dated 20.12.2001 the same landlord would require the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction and as such the conduct of the landlord smacks lack of bona fides, but both the Courts below failed to take into account the same.
9. At this juncture, I recollect and call up the maxim:
Rerum suarum quilibet est moderator et arbiter Everyone is the manager and disposer of his own matters.
Accordingly the landlord is having a right to have his own view of his matters and he could decide as to how his property could be put into much more beneficial use than the present existing one. No doubt, during the month of November 2001 he initially intended to occupy the premises for himself, but by change of mind he thought of course within a month that it would be better for him to get the building demolished and a new building erected in its place. It is quite obvious from the very location of the building that it is situated in a busy market area and if a new building is constructed, certainly it would fetch more rent and there could be no second thought over it. There are certain facts which the Court can readily understand and infer from the attending circumstances involved in a case. Here is a case, where both the Courts below considering the pro et contra of the matter felt that the landlord's intention is not fraught with any mala fides and accordingly ordered eviction, warranting no interference at the revisional level.
10. The learned counsel for the landlord invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Rent Controller and pointed out that R.W.2, the witness on the tenant's side had stated that the landlord in fact demolished virtually the rest of his portion of the building wherein the present demised premises is situated. If really the landlord had any mala fides and not bona fides to get back the demised premises for some other purpose, then he would not have demolished the rest of the portion of the building of which the demised premises forms a part. As such I could see no perversity of illegality on the part of the learned Rent Controller in ordering eviction. In the result, I could see no merit in this revision and accordingly, it is dismissed.
11. However, the learned counsel for the tenant would make an extempore submission that for the past nearly four decades the tenant has been doing business in ever silver articles and he is having his own customers and all of a sudden if he is evicted from the premises, certainly he will lose his connection with his customers.
12. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the landlord. Accordingly, I would like to grant time till 30th April 2011 for handing over delivery of vacant possession of the property in favour of the landlord, subject to payment of rent regularly and an affidavit shall be filed within fifteen days to the effect that there will be peaceful handing over possession of the property without driving the landlord to the extent of enforcing the eviction order through Court of law. On failure to pay the rent regularly, the landlord is at liberty to execute the eviction order.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Gms To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
2. The Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai