Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The respondents have contended that it is not possible to remove the intervening walls between shops no. 5 and 6 or shops no. 7 and 8 as the building will collapse, if construction is carried out. Thus, the petitioners cannot merge the two shops in order to convert the same into a bedroom and living room. The respondents have alleged that there are no columns and beams on the roofs of the said shops. The respondents have also alleged that the petitioner has obtained eviction orders in respect of shops no. 5, 6 & 7. It is the case of the respondents that the dimensions of shop no. 8 are incorrectly given by the petitioners and the latter has concealed the availability of the said shop which can be used as a godown. The respondents have claimed that pagri was paid to the landlord at the time of commencement of tenancy and hence, the transaction is not purely of the nature of landlord and tenant but is instead of an agreement to sell with delivery of possession. Lastly, the respondents have submitted that the elder daughter of the petitioner got married in 2016 itself. With these contentions, the respondents have sought dismissal of the eviction petition. Replication was filed by the petitioner wherein he denied all the averments put forth in the written statement.

43. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that shops no. 5 to 8, which also include the tenanted premises, do not have columns and beams on the roof and hence, it is dangerous to renovate/raise construction therein. Learned counsel added that the same shall cause the entire structure to collapse and hence, construction/renovation is not feasible. The said argument does not hold much water on the edifice that it is not a condition precedent under section 14(1)(e) that the premises must not be in a dilapidated state before a tenant can be evicted under the said provision. The fact that the petitioner may need to extensively repair/renovate the tenanted premises has no bearing on the bona fide requirement of the petitioner. The argument is thus, invalidated.