Madras High Court
M/S.Intuc Labour Union vs K.R.Sathish @ Sathiswaran on 29 November, 2024
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.11.2024
CORAM:
The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 & 2268 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.14164, 14166, 14167, 14171,14190 and14193 of 2020
---
M/s.INTUC Labour Union
rep by its President, Vellore District
R.Govindsamy,
S/o.Ramasamy,
Shop Nos.8 & 16, K.P.R.Complex,
M.C.Road, Ambur,
Vellore District. ... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.2254 of 2020
V.Dhanapandiyan ... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.2255 of 2020
K.Balaji ... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.2256 of 2020
K. Madhan Raj ... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.2258 of 2020
C.Sundar ... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.2265 of 2020
V.Venkatesan ... Petitioner in C.R.P.No.2268 of 2020
Versus
K.R.Sathish @ Sathiswaran ... Respondent in all C.R.Ps.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.2254 of 2020:- Civil Revision Petition filed under
Section 25 of Tamil Nadu (Buildings lease and Rent Control) Act to set aside
the fair and decretal order dated 02.11.2020 made in RCA No.8 of 2019 on the
file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Vaniyambadi
confirming the fair and decretal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order dated 28.02.2019 made in RCOP No.9
( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm )
1/26
C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020
of 2015 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Ambur.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.2255 of 2020:- Civil Revision Petition filed under
Section 25 of Tamil Nadu (Buildings lease and Rent Control) Act to set aside
the fair and decretal order dated 02.11.2020 made in RCA No.11 of 2019 on
the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court,
Vaniyambadi confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.02.2019 made in
RCOP No.6 of 2015 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Ambur.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.2256 of 2020:- Civil Revision Petition filed under
Section 25 of Tamil Nadu (Buildings lease and Rent Control) Act to set aside
the fair and decretal order dated 02.11.2020 made in RCA No.9 of 2019 on the
file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Vaniyambadi
confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.02.2019 made in RCOP No.4
of 2015 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Ambur.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.2258 of 2020:- Civil Revision Petition filed under
Section 25 of Tamil Nadu (Buildings lease and Rent Control) Act to set aside
the fair and decretal order dated 02.11.2020 made in RCA No.6 of 2019 on the
file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Vaniyambadi
confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.02.2019 made in RCOP No.5
of 2015 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Ambur.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.2265 of 2020:- Civil Revision Petition filed under
Section 25 of Tamil Nadu (Buildings lease and Rent Control) Act to set aside
the fair and decretal order dated 02.11.2020 made in RCA No.12 of 2019 on
the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court,
Vaniyambadi confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.02.2019 made in
RCOP No.10 of 2015 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Ambur.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.2268 of 2020:- Civil Revision Petition filed under
Section 25 of Tamil Nadu (Buildings lease and Rent Control) Act to set aside
the fair and decretal order dated 02.11.2020 made in RCA No.7 of 2019 on the
file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Vaniyambadi
confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.02.2019 made in RCOP No.7
of 2015 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Ambur.
For Petitioner : Mr. N. Manokaran
(in all C.R.Ps)
For Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded: on: 21/03/2025
Mr. V.V.
08:40:36Sathya
pm )
2/26
C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions had been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu (Buildings lease and Rent Control) Act to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 02.11.2020 made in R.C.A Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 2019 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Vaniyambadi confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.02.2019 made in R.C.O.P Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of 2015 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Ambur.
2. The Petitioners are the tenants and the Respondent is the landlord in all the Civil Revision Petitions (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners and Respondent).
3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions, are as follows:-
3.1. Originally the Respondent had filed Rent Control Original Petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.4,5,6,7,9 and 10 of 2015 against the Petitioners for eviction on the ground of wilful default and for demolition and reconstruction under Section 10 (2) (i) and Section 14 (1) (b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 3/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Petitions were filed against the Petitioners who are in occupation of Shop Nos.8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 19 in K.P.R. Complex at M.C. Road, Municipal Town, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District. The Petitioners were alleged to be tenants on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively payable on or before 5th of every English Calendar month. The further averments in all the petitions was that the Petitioners/Tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent from 01.06.2014. Further, the Petition mentioned shops are more than 90 years old and that the Respondent landlord decided to demolish the entire complex in order to put up new modern construction. It is also stated that the Respondent has got sufficient funds to execute the project and he is taking steps to get approval for construction from the local body and it is under process. The Respondent also sent a legal notice on 27.07.2015 to all the Petitioners calling upon them to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the shops. On receipt of the notice dated 27.07.2015, the Petitioners sent reply on 10.08.2015. Thereafter, the Respondent has filed the Rent Control Original Petitions for eviction as well as demolition and re-
construction.
3.2. The Petitioners filed their respective counters in all the petitions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 4/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 contending inter alia that the petition demised premise is not 90 year old building as alleged by the Respondent and it is only 50 years old building. The requirements of the premises by the Respondent for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. In the month of June 2015, the Respondent increased the monthly rent threefold and the Petitioners refused to pay the same, while so, the Respondent adopted unlawful methods to evict the Petitioners. The Petitioners therefore altogether filed O.S. No. 80 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court at Ambur for granting a permanent Injunction against restraining the Respondent from evicting them without following the due process of law. Due to the above said suit, the Respondent refused to receive the rent from the Petitioners and therefore they were forced to file Petitions for deposit of Rent under Section 8(5) in R.C.O.P Nos. 12, 15, 13 of 2015. The Respondent had preferred the eviction Petition against the Petitioners with mala fide intention to get rid of the tenants and that there is no necessity to demolish the petition premises.
3.3. During trial, the Respondent examined two witnesses on their side and marked 4 exhibits. The Petitioners also examined two witnesses but no document was marked on their side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 5/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 3.4. The Rent Controller after enquiry negatived the plea for eviction on the ground of wilful default holding that the Petitioners have not committed any wilful default whereas the Rent Controller allowed the eviction Petition on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.
3.5. The Rent Controller has held that the building need not be old and in dilapidated condition to consider the plea of demolition and reconstruction. The production of sanctioned plan is not a condition precedent for seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The Respondent has got sufficient resources to construct a new building as he is an income tax assessee getting income from shops in the petition premises and the income from the adjacent lodge S.R.K. Residency belonging to him, which is currently under renovation. As the Petition premises is admittedly more than 50 years old, the requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide.
3.6. Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioners preferred Appeals in R.C.A. Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 2019 before the Sub-Judge, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District. However, as the Respondent has not challenged the order negativing his plea for eviction on the ground of wilful default and it has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 6/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 become final.
3.7. Regarding the appeals challenging the order for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeals.
3.8. Aggrieved by the said order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, these Revision Petitions had been filed.
4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the Respondent has not taken any steps to produce documents like the report of the Advocate Commissioner or the Civil Engineer regarding condition of building. He also did not produce sanction of the building plan, age and condition of the building. The intention of the Respondent to demolish and reconstruct the building is not bona fide but intended to evict the petitioners from the shops in their occupation. The financial position of the landlord to construct a new building also was not taken into consideration by the Courts below.
5. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners further https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 7/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 submitted that the Respondent had in his cross examination admitted that he has not filed any documents such as plan approval for construction of the building as proof of his claim that the building in question is 90 years old. Also he had admitted that he had not filed any document as proof of obtaining plan approval for demolition and re-construction. He had also admitted that he had not filed any document regarding the permission obtained from the Municipality for demolition. Similarly, he had not filed any document to show his resources for re-construction. Under those circumstances, the claim of the Landlord that the building requires demolition and re-construction is not proved and cannot be accepted. Therefore, the contention that the Tenant has to be evicted from the rented premises to facilitate the landlord to construct a new building is legally not sustainable.
6. He also submitted that the learned Rent Controller had allowed the R.C.O.P. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of 2015 on the ground of demolition and re-construction as the Petitioners had admitted that the building is 50 years old and if the building is admitted to be 50 years old, such admission itself is sufficient for the Landlord to demolish and re-construct the building. For the landlord to raise such a plea, the building need not be in a dilapidated condition. It is enough if the area requires development. Since it is in town https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 8/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 area, buzzing with commercial activities and there is a great demand for property and vacant spaces, the plea of the landlord is only to evict the petitioners and it is not bona fide. The learned Rent Controller had allowed the Petitions without proper documents as proof of the claim of the Landlord.
7. Further, he submitted that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the basis of the reported decisions relied by the learned Counsel for the landlord in support of his contention, rejected the Appeals filed by the Tenants/Petitioners herein, thereby confirming the finding of the learned Rent Controller.
8. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the Respondent had not proved his case with proper documents. Therefore, the finding of the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had to be set aside.
9. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners relied on the following reported decisions:
(i) In the case of Vijay Singh & Others vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal reported in 1996(6) SCC 475:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 9/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 “10. ....For granting permission under Section 14(1)(b)the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bona fide or not. For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account : (1) bona fide intention of the landlord for from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building ; (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b). NO court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller.”
(ii) In the case of Harrington House School vs S.M. Isphani & another reported in 2002 (5) SCC 229 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:
“5. The judicial opinion centering around Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, as it has travelled through the passage of times has been noticed in a recent decision of this Court in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Venkatesaha Gupta. A Three-udge Bench decision of this Court in P.Orr and Sons (P) Ltd v. Associated Publishers (Maras) Ltd held the field up to the year 1996. The view taken therein was that it was the condition of the building which was determinative of the degree of urgency warranting demolition followed by reconstruction of the building and on such finding depended the bona fides of the requirement within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. However, the Constitution Bench decision in Vijay Singh v. Vijayalaksmi Ammal watered down the effect of holding of this Court in P.Orr and Sons and held that the age and condition of the building was only one of the relevant factors, and certainly not the sole determinative factor, for testing the bona fides of the Landlord. The Constitution Bench held that the bona fides of requirement for demolition could be found out by taking into account (i) bona fide intention of the Landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the Tenants, (ii) the age and condition of the building, (iii) the financial position of the Landlord to demolish and erect a new building. However, the Constitution https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Bench added that these were only some of ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 10/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 the illustrative factors to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b). In R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder this Court has held that apart from the age and condition of the building the capacity of the Landlord to demolish and reconstruct, the useful utilization of the property which would on demolition and reconstruction make available more space to be occupied by human beings for residential/non-residential purposes and the genuine desire of the Landlord to earn economic advantage are relevant factors pointing to the bona fides of the requirement. In the present case it has been found that the building is an old construction requiring demolition and reconstruction. Out of the total area of the property only a part is built up and substantial portion is lying open and vacant. There is pressure of population on the developing city and several multi-storey complexes have come up in the vicinity of the property. There is nothing to cast a shadow of doubt on the bona fides of the Landlords pleading an immediate need for demolition followed by reconstruction. No fault can be found with the finding of fact arrived at by the High Court. The decision by the Appellate Court was rendered on 25th February, 1994 when a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in P.Orr & Sons was holding the field and in view of the construction placed by this Court in P.Orr & Sons the Appellate Court was persuaded to deny eviction in spite of the finding of facts being for the Landlord. The High Court has rightly set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and ordered eviction following the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh case. It is true that the Landlords have not pleaded and relied on the age and condition of the building as one of the components of their bona fides but that is immaterial. The age and condition of the building has been determined and is available for assessing the bona fides of the Landlords' need.”
(iii) In the case of Duraisamy & Others vs. R.Sureshlal and another reported in 2006 (3) CTC 147 this Court had held as follows:
“4. However, now let us go into the question of bonafide requirement of demolition and reconstruction. Even though the landlord has cited the following decisions in Vijay Singh etc., Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, 1996 (2) CTC 586; R.Perianna Asari and another V. Jayakumar, 1997 (1) LW 727 ; and S.Namagiri Lakshmi Vs.Pravin Harilal Mehta and others, 1998 (1) CTC 595, ultimately, we are guided by the Division Bench Judgment of the Supreme court in Shakeelulur Rahman V. Sysd Mehdi Ispahani 2002 (4) CTC 753, wherein it was held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 11/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 “Age and condition of building sought to be demolished are relevant factors to test bona fides of landlord but they are not determinative of bonafide requirement; Landlord could seek eviction https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ on ground of demolition and reconstruction to construct new building for which necessary permission has been obtained and sufficient financial resources were available with landlord as then bonafide requirement would be established.”
5. But in the given circumstances, there is no plan filed for reconstruction and there is also no evidence, indicating the financial resources available with the present Respondent. There is also no Engineer's report to show that the building is dilapidated and in a condition endangering human occupation. In this view of the matter, the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction is not bonafide.
6. Regarding owner's occupation also, there is no bonafide reasons stated nor was it discussed in the Judgments of the Rent Control Appeals. I have also perused the Rent Control Original Petitions. Para 11 of Rent Control Petitions states that eviction is sought for under Sections 14 (1) and 10(3) of Rent Control Act and no substantial reason has been assigned for owner's occupation. Even in Para 11 of the order of Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 24, 28, 30, 35 and 42 of 1999, it is found that the request of owner's occupation is devoid of merits.”
(iv) In the case of Kolla Ravindra (alias) K.Ravi vs. Susheela Bai reported in 2007 (4) CTC 786 this Court had observed as under:
“10. The tenor of the letter would clearly indicate that this cannot be a letter written by a tenant, who has vacated and handed over the possession to the landlady. A said letter is found written in such a way, that too, to satisfy the legal requirements as contemplated under the provisions of law would indicate the fact that the building is not in a good condition. The narration that the entire building is in a state of disrepair and the corporation people inspected the portion and advised him to shift to the new building would clearly reveal that the letter should have been prepared for the purpose of case. At no stretch of imagination any reliance can be placed on the letter for the purpose of indicating the bona fide of the landlady. Thus, in the instant case, it is not in controversy that the landlady in order to proceed with new construction, planned for demolition and reconstruction. Under Section 14(1)(b) bona fide of the landlady for immediate demolition and reconstruction must be satisfactorily proved. But in the instant case, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 12/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 Court is of the considered opinion that it has not been done. The above circumstances would indicate that the bona fide was lacking clearly in this case. Even for construction, means were to be available and the plan for demolition and construction should also be approved by the Corporation concerned. They would not satisfy the bona fide what is required under the Act. So long as bona fide of the landlady is not satisfactorily shown, application under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act cannot be ordered on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.”
10. By placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners-tenant prayed for allowing the Civil Revision Petitions as prayed for.
11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Landlord need not prove that the building is in dilapidated condition. The Landlord needs the building to demolish and re-construct to earn more income. His intention is to construct building complex to make better use of the property and for enhancement of income. He further submitted that the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners has to be rejected in the light of the following reported decisions:-
1. 1995-2-LW-253 in the case of R.Ramadoss and another vs. Syed Shapabuddien.
2. 2002-3-LW-262 in the case of Immaculate Heart of Mary Society vs. Krishnaveni and others.
3. 2002-2-MLJ-38 in( Uploaded https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the on:case of 08:40:36 21/03/2025 SM.Ispahani pm ) and another vs. 13/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 Harrington House School.
4. 1997-1-LW-323 in the case of Sherwood Educational Society vs. Abid Namazie and 2 others.
5. 2010-1-ML-500 in the case of Josephine Christobell vs. P.Subramanian.
6. 1997-2-LW-287 in the case of Saraswathi Ammal and two others vs. Malligaarjuna and Raja and others.
7. 2006-3-MLJ-29 in the case of S.Venugopal vs. Karuppasamy and others.
8. 2005-4-CTC-673 in the case of Karuppusamy vs. Sivakumar.
12. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller by holding that the requirement of the landlord to demolish and reconstruct the more than 50 year old building is reasonable and bona fide. Further, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Landlord submitted that the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu (lease and rent control) Act 1960, where the Revisional Court need not re-assess or re-appreciate the evidence. Under Section 25, this Court can examine as to whether the conclusion reached by the courts below is based on documentary evidence and is not contrary to the well settled principles of law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 14/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 Such a findings rendered by the courts below need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Section 25 of The Act and he prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions.
Point for Consideration:
Whether the Revision Petitions are to be allowed and concurrent finding of the learned Rent controller, Ambur and the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub Judge, Vaniyambadi in R.C.As in R.C.O.P are to be set aside?
13. Heard Thiru. N. Manoharan, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners (Tenants) and Thiru. V.V. Sathya. learned Counsel for the Respondent (Landlord)
14. Perused the depositions of landlord as P.W-1 and the tenant as R.W-1 in each of RCOP Nos.4,5,6,7,9 and 10 of 2015. Perused the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. Nos.4,5,6,7,9 and 10 of 2015 and also the judgments passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.Nos. 6,7,8,9,11 and 12 of 2019.
15. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 15/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 is evident that the Landlord has filed the Original Petitions on two grounds –
(i) for willful default under Section 10 (2) (1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and (ii) for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14 (1) (b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Rent Controller, Ambur, had dismissed the R.C.O.P. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of 2015 on the ground of willful default under Section 10(2)(1) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and allowed the R.C.O.P. Nos.4,5,6,7,9 and 10 of 2015 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. As against the portion of the order, disallowing the Petitions filed by the Landlords for eviction on the ground of wilful default, the landlord has not filed any appeal.
16. The learned Rent Controller relied on the ruling of this Court in the case of R. Pappathiammal and others vs Nachammal reported in 2001 (1) LW 814 wherein it is observed that;
"the Landlord must establish facts of condition and age of the building, bona fide intention of the Landlord and his solvency. As far as solvency of the Landlords is concerned, though a vague stand is taken in the counter that the Landlords are not solvent enough, yet from the very suggestion made on behalf of the defense to P.W-1 when he was in the witness box, it is seen that the Landlords own a number of buildings in Erode and many of them have been let out. Erode town in buzzling with commercial activities and there is a great demand for property https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 16/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 and vacant place. In view of the importance of Erode Town, the very fact that the Landlords are owning a number of buildings, many of which have been let out to Tenants, would by itself mean that the Landlords can generate the funds to meet the expenses to be incurred for the purpose of reconstruction.
In view of the prohibitive fees which every intending builder has to pay for getting the sanctioned plan; to insist for the same and keeping it alive till the disposal of the eviction proceedings, would amount to burdening the Landlord very heavily in terms of money and therefore, it has been held in those cases that the producing of the sanctioned plan is not a condition precedent before ever an order of eviction could be passed. Under those circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court in entire agreement with the Appellate Authority that the Landlords had established their capacity to meet the expenses regarding the proposed construction as well as had taken necessary steps towards the same".
17. The subject matter of this revision is that the building known as KPR Complex is situate in Ambur Town, which is declared as a Municipality. It is adjoining the National Highway between Chennai and Bengaluru. Therefore, what was observed in the reported decision in the case of R.Pappathiammal and others vs Nachammal in 2001 (1) LW 814 was found acceptable by the learned Rent controller. In the Appeal, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had also rejected the contention of the Appellant/Tenant, as the Tenants claimed that the building is 50 years old.
18. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority relied on 1995-2- LW-2000, 1997-2-LW-Vol-2-page-287, 2006-3-MLJ-Vol-3 Page 29 wherein it was held that the Landlord need not prove that the building is in a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 17/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 dilapidated condition. The Landlord wants to demolish and re-construct the building to earn more income and to construct a new modern and fancy complex to make better use of the property for enhancement of income. Further the adjoining buildings in the area are developed more and as such he wants to demolish the building.
19. The reported ruling relied by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner also supports the claim of the Landlord in the case of Vijay Singh and others -vs- Vijayalakshmi Ammal reported in 1996(6) SCC 475. In the reported decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners in the case of Kolla Ravindra (alias) K.Ravi vs Susheela Bai reported in 2007 (4) CTC 786, the facts are different. The landlady refused to receive rent and filed petition for eviction when the Tenant had filed petition seeking permission of the Court to deposit rent into the Court. Subsequently the land lady filed eviction petition on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. When that petition was pending, she filed another petition seeking eviction of the Tenant on the ground of sub-letting. Therefore, it was found that the attempt of the landlady is not bona fides. In the case, the Tenants filed counter disputing the claim of the Landlord that the building is 90 years old. In the counter, they had stated that the building is only 50 years old in KPR https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 18/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 complex. Such admission itself will be sufficient for the Landlord to seek demolition and re-construction.
20. The claim made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Respondent had not proved the bona fide by filing the document regarding grant of approval before construction of the complex to prove the age of the building as 90 years. It was also claimed that the Respondent had not filed any document regarding resources available with him for reconstruction, document seeking permission for demolition of the building. Therefore, the intention of the Landlord was not bona fide. The same contention made before the Rent Controller was rejected by the Rent controller on the ground that it is the discretion of the Landlord to enhance his income by demolition and reconstruction. For this purpose, the building need not be in a dilapidated condition.
21. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners is that the Landlord had in his evidence admitted that he had not filed proof of age of the building, proof of obtaining permission, for demolition and reconstruction etc., In the absence of such documents, the Landlord had failed to prove that he has sufficient resources. Therefore, the requirement of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 19/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 Landlord was not bona fide cannot be accepted. The property to be demolished and reconstructed is situated in KPR complex in M.C. Road, Ambur, Vellore District. It is abutting Bengaluru-Chennai National Highway, which is a flourishing Town. Further, the adjacent building is a lodge owned by the same landlord in the name and style of SRK Residency belonging to the Landlord which had also been renovated. Therefore, when the adjoining building has been demolished and reconstructed for enhancement of income by the respective property owner, the claim of the Landlord is found bona fide. The facts of the reported ruling in 2011 (1) LW 814 [Pappathiammal and others vs Nachammal] squarely applies to the facts of this case. That was a case where the landlord sought demolition and reconstruction in Erode Town. Here the tenants/revision petitioners themselves admitted that the building is 50 years old but disputed the claim that it is 90 years, as projected by the Landlord. The defence of the tenants is that the landlord had admitted that he had not furnished documents and did not prove his bona fides will not hold good. In the reported ruling in 2011 (1) LW 814 [Pappathiammal and others vs. Nachammal] this Court had observed in paragraph 13 above that the fact that the landlord own some other building in the very same locality itself is sufficient to take note of the resourcefulness of the landlord. In the present case also, the landlord owns a Lodge in the very same locality. While so, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 20/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 landlord is affluent and is having the necessary resource to carry out demolition and to construct a new building thereof. Therefore, in the light of such observation, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners is found unacceptable.
22. The same principle enunciated in 2011 (1) LW 814 [Pappathiammal and others vs Nachammal] also applies to the facts of this case. The landlord is within his discretion to improve his resources for better economic utility by demolishing the 50 years old building or 90 years old building as the case may be and replace it with a modern building with all facilities. The land is situated abutting Bengaluru-Chennai National Highways and for enhancing his income the Respondent is attempting to demolish and reconstruct a new building in its place. Such a requirement cannot be denied by the tenants for the purpose of refusing to vacate. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambur was also rightly confirmed in Appeal by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/learned Sub Judge, Vaniyambadi by dismissing the Appeals preferred by the Tenants.
23. The claim that the building plan was not filed was also considered by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that the Landlord has to pay https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 21/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 more charges for obtaining building plan approval if he could not complete the construction within the time. The landlord did not obtain the building planning approval considering that the litigation at the instance of the tenants is pending. Therefore the reasons adduced by the Landlord for not furnishing the building plan approval etc., was accepted by the learned Rent Controller by relying upon the decision in Pappathiammal and others vs Nachammal reported in 2011 (1) LW 814.
24. In the Appeals also, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority observed that based on the reported decision the documents need not be furnished by the landlord. It was also held that there are favourable conditions available in favour of the landlord for not furnishing those documents especially when the age of the building itself was admitted to be more than 50 years by the tenants and it is sufficient to permit the landlord to resort to a demolition to re-construct a new building.
25. The reported decisions relied by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners in 1996 (6) SCC 475, 2002 (5) SCC 229 in similar matters held that the Landlord need not file building plan approval, as he has to pay huge amount for building plan approval if the building is not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 22/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 constructed within the specified time. In fact, the landlord has to pay enhanced charges if the construction of the building is delayed. Thus, it was held that the genuine requirement of the Landlord to earn economic advantage is a relevant factor to be considered in his favour.
26. In the light of the reported decision in 2002 (5) SCC 229, even though, the Revision Petitions are dismissed, the Petitioner (Landlord) is directed to produce sanctioned plan before the learned Rent Controller, Ambur during execution proceedings based on the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Landlord in Parasmal vs R.Mohan reported in 2007(1) CTC 617.
27. As per MANU/TN/0685/2019 in the case of S.Sundararajan -vs A.Mary Josephine, it is observed in the Head note that, "if the property was in a commercial locality and if requirement and intention of Petitioner was established then it was suffice to prove bonafide - Revision dismissed.
28. Under these circumstances, the Revision Petitions fail. This Court, in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act, cannot re-appraise the evidence afresh as an Appellate Court. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that the Landlord had not filed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 23/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 proof of age of the building, proof of permission regarding demolition and proof regarding fresh building plan approval, regarding resources cannot be accepted. The claim of the Tenants that the claim of the Landlord was not bona fide cannot be accepted. The Landlord is within his discretion to augment the income by putting up a fresh construction.
29. As observed above, before proceeding with eviction, the Landlord shall furnish the building plan approval before the learned Rent Controller within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order to prove the bona fides for demolition and re-construction of a building, as per the reported decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners (Tenants) in Harrington House School vs S.M. Isphani & another reported in 2002 (5) SCC 229.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The judgment dated 02.11.2020 made in RCA No.8, 11, 9, 6, 12 and 7 of 2019 respectively on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Vaniyambadi, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.02.2019 made in RCOP No.9, 6, 4, 5, 10 and 7 of 2015 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Ambur are confirmed. It is made clear that to show the bona fide, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 24/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 the Respondent-Landlord is directed to furnish the plan for demolition and reconstruction within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Executing Court. The Executing Court shall grant sufficient time for the Petitioners-Tenants to vacate and handover the vacant possession to the Respondent-landlord. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
29.11.2024 shl Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To
1. The Rent Controller, Ambur.
2. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vaniyambadi.
3. The Section Officer, V.R. Records, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 25/26 C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 and 2268 of 2020 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J shl/srm Common Order in C.R.P.Nos.2254, 2255, 2256, 2258, 2265 & 2268 of 2020 29.11.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 08:40:36 pm ) 26/26