Madras High Court
B.Prabhuram vs S.Kamalam (Died) on 19 April, 2017
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.04.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR C.R.P.(NPD). No.1287 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.6007 of 2017 B.Prabhuram ... Petitioner ..Vs.. 1.S.Kamalam (Died) 2.Ravichandran 3.Lakshmi Priya ...Respondents (R2&R3 impleaded as per the order dated ...... Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and Principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dated 25.01.2017 in R.C.A.No.37 of 2015 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Controller and the first Additional District Munsif of Coimbatore, dated 12.01.2015 in R.C.O.P.No.128 of 2008 and to allow the above C.R.P. For petitioner : Mr.V.Nicholas R1 : Died For R2 & R3 : Mr.C.R.Prasanan O R D E R
Challenging the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/ Principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, dated 25.01.2017, in R.C.A.No.37 of 2015 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Controller/First Additional District Munsif of Coimbatore, dated 12.01.2015 in R.C.O.P.No.128 of 2008, the present revision petition has been filed.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent herein has filed the R.C.O.P.No.128 of 2008 before the I Additional District Munsif, Rent Controller, Coimbatore. The petitioner has filed the detailed counter affidavit in the above said R.C.O.P. During the pendency of the R.C.O.P, the Rent Controller/First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore has appointed the Advocate Commissioner to note down the conditions of the demised building and to file and report. The report has been filed along with photos, which were marked as Exhibits C1 and C2. In the report, it is stated that the demised property has developed several cracks on the walls; there is seepage of water in the concrete ceiling during rain; the building had lived its life; the whole structure is in week condition and therefore, the entire building is likely to collapse at any time; the neighbours of the petitioner are apprehending danger to their life and limb, as the building is likely to fall at any time, because of its poor construction' But, the petitioner/tenant has denied such allegations in his written statement. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences, the Rent Controller has allowed the R.C.O.P. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the appeal in R.C.A.No.37 of 2015 and the same was dismissed on 25.01.2017. As against the said order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred this revision before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the Courts below have rejected the contention of the petitioner, without considering the good condition of the building and only with malafide intention, the respondent has filed the aforesaid R.C.O.P. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner pays the monthly rent regularly to the landlord/respondent, in spite of that the respondent has filed the present O.P for eviction without any bonafide reasons. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the orders passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside and the same may be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that both the courts have considered the oral and documentary evidence and on the basis of the materials. Particularly the documents Exs. P1 and P2 photographs of the demised property. Ex.P12 notice issued by the Coimbatore Corporation to demolish the building immediately and also Exhibits C1 and C2, Advocate Commissioner's report and photos respectively, allowed the eviction petition.
5. The Rent Controller has extracted the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, in Paragraph Nos.8, 9 of the order, which reads as follows:-
''8. kDr; brhj;jhdJ kDjhuUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;gJk;. vjph;kDjhuh;. thlifjhuh; vd;gJk; ,Ujug;gpYk; xg;g[f; bfhz;Ls;sdh;/ nkYk; kDr; brhj;jpw;fhd khj thlifia vjph;kDjhuh; brYj;jp tUtJ gw;wpa'k; ,Ujug;gpYk; ve;jtpjkhd gpur;rida[k; ,y;iy/ kDr; brhj;jpy; cs;s fl;olkhdJ kpft[k; gHikahdJ vd;gjdhy; mjpYs;s Rth;fspy; tphpry;fs; Vw;gl;L ,oa[k; epiyapy; ,Ue;J tUtjdhy; mtw;iw ,oj;J tpl;L g[jpjhf fl;olk; fl;lg; nghtjhf brhy;tJ ey;byz;zj;jpd;ghy; Vw;gl;ljh vd;gij ghprPypf;ifapy;. kDr; brhj;ij ghh;itapLtjw;fhf ePjpkd;w Mizah; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;L. nkw;go ePjpkd;w Mizah;. bghwpahsh; cjtpa[ld; kDr; brhj;ij ghh;itapl;L mwpf;if kw;Wk; tiuglk; jhf;fy; bra;Js;shh;/ mwpf;if eP/krhM/1 Mft[k;. nghl;nlhf;fs; eP/krhM3 Mft[k; FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go ePjpkd;w Mizah; eP/krh1 Mf tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;/ nkw;go egh; jd;Dila rhl;rpaj;jpy;. kDr; brhj;ij ghh;itapl;l rkaj;jpy; fl;ol bghwpahsh; cld; ,Ue;jjhft[k;. kDr; brhj;ij nghl;nlh vLj;jjhft[k;. nkw;go kDr; brhj;jpy; cs;s Kjy; jsj;jpy; mike;Js;s ghy;fdpahdJ kpft[k; nrjkile;Jk;. Rth;fspy; gy tphpry;fs; Vw;gl;oUe;jjhft[k;'. fil vz;/95y; _uhk; buonkl;!; vd;w bgah; gyif ,Ue;jjhft[k;. jhd; ghh;itapl;l nghJ kDr; brhj;jpd; Rth;fs; nrjk; mile;J tphpry;fs; Vw;gl;oUe;jjhft[k;. nkw;go Rth;fs; ,oe;J tpGe;jhy; mf;fk; gf;fk; ,Ug;gth;fSf;F Mgj;J Vw;gl tha;g;gpUg;gjhft[k; brhy;ypa[s;shh;;/ 9/ ePjpkd;w Mizah; kDr; brhj;ij ghh;itapLk; nghJ mtUf;F cjtpahf bghwpahsh; ,Ue;jjhft[k;. mth; jdpg;gl;l Kiwapy; kDr; brhj;ij ghh;itapl;L mtUk; xU mwpf;if jhf;fy; bra;Js;shh;/ me;j mwpf;if k/rh/M26 Mf FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mth; jd;Dila rhl;rpaj;jpy; 22/08/2009y; fhiy 11/30 kzpf;F kDr; brhj;ij ghh;itapl brd;wjhft[k;. mg;nghJ ePjpkd;w Mizah; kw;Wk; ,Ujug;g[ tHf;fwp"h;fs; ,Ue;jjhft[k;. kDr; brhjij ghh;itapl;l nghJ kDr; brhj;jpy; cs;s ghy;fdp nrjk; mile;jpUe;jJ vd;Wk;. mit ve;j neuj;jpYk; ,oe;J tpGk; epiyapy; ,Ue;jJ vd;Wk;. me;j tpguk; gw;wp jd;Dila mwpf;ifapy; brhy;yp ,Ug;gjhft[k;. nkw;go kD fl;olj;jpd; fpH g[w filahdJ nrjkile;J ,Ue;jJ vd;Wk;. fl;olj;jpd; gpd;g[w Rth;fs; nrjk; mile;jpUe;jJ vd;Wk;. mjida[k; jd;Dila mwpf;ifapy; Fwpg;gpl;oUg;gjhft[k;. nkw;go kD fl;olj;jpy; cs;s ghy;fdp RtuhdJ rhuk; itj;J epWj;jg;gl;oUe;jJ vd;Wk;. me;j rhuj;ij vLj;J tpl;lhy; fl;olk; tpGk; epiyapy; ,Ue;jJ vd;Wk; rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;shh;/''
6. Hence, the report of the Advocate Commissioner was considered by the Court below and accepted the contention of the respondent/landlord.
7. On the contrary, the petitioner has not filed any documents. The petitioner has not produced any supporting materials to disprove the aforesaid documents filed by the respondent/landlord. Therefore, the Rent Controller allowed the R.C.O.P and appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub-Court, Coimbatore by raising the grounds that there is no willful default in payment of rents and the contention of the respondent are denied by the petitioner in the appeal. The Appellate Court considered the contentions of both sides counsel and also considered oral and documentary evidence marked before the Rent Controller and observed that in the light of the documents marked in Exhibits C1 and C2 and also the Commissioner was examined as C.W.1 and the report of the Commissioner has been incorporated in the order in Paragraph 9 which reads as follows:-
9. Considering both side arguments and both side oral and documentary evidence available, the main contention of the respondent/landlady is that the petition mentioned premises is in very damaged condition and which has to be demolished. But, the learned counsel for the appellant/tenant submits that even it is only a 30 year old building, it is in a good condition, in order to verify the same, Commissioner has been examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 and C2 were marked. In the Commissioner's report, it is categorically stated by the Commissioner in para 7 is as follows:-
"In the front ie. the northern side the balcony walls are completely damaged, there are multiple cracks all over the wall which covers the balcony. There is a wall in the eastern side of the Shop No.94 which is completely damaged and this wall is separated by a crack from the main building...."
8. Therefore, the appellate Court by relying upon the decision of this Court in 2013(1) MWN P.44 dismissed the appeal.
The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the decision of this Court in M.Velmurugan and another Vs. P.Srinivasan and another reported in 2004 (4) CTC 286 in Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 which reads as follows:-
''14.It is also to be remembered that the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in P.S.Pareed Kaka and others V.Shafee Ahmed Saheb, 2004(2)CTC 364:2004(5)SCC 241 held that the High Court has jurisdiction to go into the legality or correctness of the decision, which includes the power to appreciate evidence and that the High Court can interfere with the finding of fact also. The examination as to the correctness involves appreciation of evidence and that the High Court can interfere with the finding of the Rent Controller is entirely improbable.
15.In the case on hand, I do not find any such improbability in the orders of the Courts below, hence, the principles enunciated in the decision reported in K.M.Abdul Razzack V. Damodharan, 2000(4) Supreme 575 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case.''
9. In view of the decision cited above, it is clear that the petitioner has not placed any materials before the courts below to disprove the case of the respondent herein/landlord and therefore, both the authorities have rejected the contention of the petitioner and hold that the building is in a dilapidated condition which requires immediate demolition and re-construction.
10. This Court in M.M.Nagalinga Nadar Sons rep.by its Partner D.Kanagasabai Vs. Sri Lakshmi Family Trust, rep.by its Trustees K.P.Subbaiyan and K.P Manian reported in 2001(4) CTC 449 in Paragraphs 44 and 45 held as follows:-
''44. The only question remaining for consideration is as regards the merits of the claim whether a case has been made out for demolition and reconstruction. On this both the authorities below have concurrently held that the building is in a dilapidated condition and it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. In coming to mat conclusion, the authorities below relied on the report and the plan of the Advocate Commissioner and the report of the Engineer as also the oral evidence let in on behalf of the petitioner concern itself. This aspect has been very elaborately dealt with by both the authorities. In the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it is stated that there were a few cracks on the wall, that there was a wooden roofing on the northwestern side portion and it was supported by a bamboo post and that on the ceiling there were a four holds found on the western side. In the wooden steps there were cracks in few places. The relevant portion of the report of the Advocate Commissioner runs as follows:-
"The wooden rafters had fallen down. It was a terraced building with Madras tiles roofing. The staircase had been decayed. It may fall at any time. The electric construction was even without covering in some placed. It was very dangerous for the occupants. The age of the building was about 60 years. The terrace was constructed with mud mortar and it gave way at four places and sun light goes inside through those holes. The building may collapse at any time".
It is also seen that the corporation has served notice on the respondent that the building is in dilapidated condition and it has to be demolished as otherwise it would endanger the life of the inhabitants and the neighbours. No exception can be taken to the finding reached by the authorities below regarding the condition of the building that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. Equally no exception can be taken to the finding reached by the authorities below that the requirement of the trust for demolition and reconstruction is bonafide. The criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijay Singh's case, 1996(2) CTC 586:1997 (1)M.L.J(S.C)98:1997(1)L.W.218 are fully satisfied in the present case. The ratio in Vijay Singh's case, has been followed by this Court in several subsequent decisions.
45. In Ammal Pillai V.M/s.Varadarajulu Complex etc., 1997 (1) M.L.J 626:1997(1)L.W.364 dealing with Sec.14(1)(b), the learned Judge has said that the standard required with regard to the condition of the building is not that it is in a dangerous condition and that it may collapse at any time. Locality, how far the particular area could be put to better use if a modern building is put up, whether any development has taken place; what are the economic advantages that the parties can obtain, are all matters of relevance along with physical condition of the building. The views of the landlord as owner of the building are also of some importance. See also S.M.Isaphani and another v. Harrington House School by its Honarary Secretary, Madras, 2000(1) CTS 634:2000(2)M.L.J 38.''
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the decisions cited supra, there is no error or illegality in the order passed by both the authorities and therefore, no prima case is made out by the petitioner and thus, this Revision Petition fails and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.04.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No nvi D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J., nvi C.R.P.(NPD). No.1287 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.6007 of 2017 19.04.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in