Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The landlady in her petition though specifically contended that she has applied to the municipality for necessary licence and has obtained the plan, etc., she has not filed the same before the Rent Controller. She has filed only Exs.A1 to A-4, which are the notice issued through lawyer and the acknowledgments received from the tenants. In order to prove the condition of the building, the landlady has not examined herself but only examined her clerk who joined the services of the landlady during 1983. He would not say anything in his evidence in regard to the nature and condition of the building but only says that the building is old and if demolished, the landlady would get more income. He has further deposed that the landlady has not filed the licence and plan obtained by her from the Municipal Corporation. However, in cross-examination he would say that he has applied for plan only a day prior to his examination as a witness viz., on 5.10.1988. Thus, I am of the view, that the oral evidence tendered on the side of the landlady will be of no assistance to the court in arriving at any conclusion in regard to the nature and condition of the building. As rightly pointed out by Mr. K. Sampath, the mere allegation in the petition that the building was old not sufficient for invoking the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The non examination of any other independent witness on the side of the landlady to support her claim, in my opinion, was fatal and in the circumstances, the ratio laid down in the decisions reported in Metalware & Co., v. Bansilal Sharma and J.D. Devadoss v. N. Srikantiah (1986(1) MLJ 93) are applicable to the facts of this case.

14. In the decision reported in J.D. Devadoss v. N. Srikanthiah (1986(1) MLJ, 93), K.M. Natarajan J., has held as follows:-

"The mere fact that the building is old in itself is not sufficient for invoking the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and ordering eviction. It is desirable that the petitioner should let in evidence by examining a qualified engineer or commissioner to show that the building is in a dilapidated condition and that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The mere fact that the landlord has got sufficient funds and has taken steps by obtaining the sanction of plan for demolition and reconstruction would also not be sufficient".