Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Mr.R. Krishnamoorthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords has submitted that though in the petition it is specifically stated that the age of the building in question is 70, there is no acceptable evidence on the side of the tenants. With respect to the means, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the abovesaid documents in support of his submission that the landlords are having sufficient means to reconstruct the building. He has further relied on the Ex.P-1 under which the landlords have obtained permission for demolition of the building. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the respondents/landlords have explained as to why they have not obtained sanctioned plan. He has relied on the evidence of P.W.2 on that aspect. Relying on the counters filed in the fair rent proceedings, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the tenants themselves admitted that the building is in dilapidated condition and so the admission of the opposite parties to test the evidence, according to him, the landlords, have established their requirement under Section 14(1)(b) of the said Act, including the bona fide intention, which has been accepted by the authorities below. Relying on the decisions with respect to the scope of Section 25 of the said Act, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that this Court may not interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below with respect to the issue involved.

23. While appreciating the necessity for filing a sanctioned plan, Ramanujam, J., as he then was, in the decision in A.S. Fathima v. Omer Cloth Store, , has held as follows:

"So far as the first reason given by the appellate authority that no sanctioned plan for reconstruction has been obtained is concerned, the petitioners have explained that if they obtain permission to reconstruct and also a sanctioned plan for that purpose, the construction should be commenced within six months from the date of issue of the permit and the construction should be completed within two years from the date of the permit. Otherwise, fresh permission has to be obtained on payment 'again' of the necessary building licence fees before proceeding with further work. According to the petitioners as the ultimate decision in the eviction petitions will take some time they thought that they can apply for permission to reconstruct and obtain the sanctioned plan, after the Court orders eviction as otherwise any delay in the disposal of the eviction petitions will result in the petitioners paying the licence fee every time when the permission lapses for purpose of getting renewal of the permission or for getting fresh sanction of the plan. According to the petitioners if they had obtained plan for reconstruction even before the filing of eviction petitions and the eviction proceedings are dragged on, they will have to pay the renewal fees time and again and that will involve them huge expenses which they wanted to avoid by merely applying for permission to demolish and obtaining a sanctioned plan for demolition. I am inclined to accept the explanation given by the petitioners for not getting the requisite permission for reconstruction and get sanctioned plan for reconstruction. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioners have applied for permission to demolish the building and they have filed the sanctioned plan for that purpose. It cannot be disputed that in all such cases where eviction is sought on the ground of the landlord's requirement for demolition and reconstruction the main question to be considered by the Court is whether the requirement is bona fide or not. Even if the plan for reconstruction has not been obtained, if there are other materials to indicate that the requirement is bona fide, the fact that the petitioners have not applied for sanction for reconstruction or not got the plan sanctioned for that purpose, that by itself cannot be taken to be a ground for holding that the requirement is not bona fide. As already stated, the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have held that the petitioners have sufficient means to undertake the work of demolition and reconstruction. They have also proved by producing the plant for demolition and the permission granted by the Corporation for that purpose, their intention to demolish and reconstruct the building. Therefore, merely because plan for reconstruction has not been obtained in addition to the sanctioned plan for demolition it is not possible to say that the petitioners, requirement is not bona fide".