This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 26.09.2006, passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai, in R.C.A.No.86 of 2000, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 10.04.2000, passed in R.C.O.P.No.363 of 1990, on the file of the Rent Controller / District Munsif Court, Madurai.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the rent control original petition.
3. In brief, according to the petitioner / landlord, the petition schedule property (hereinafter, referred to as ?the property?) belonged to the petitioner and leased out to the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.205/- and the first respondent had subleased the property to the respondents 2 to 4 unauthorizedly without the consent of the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of the property subleased to them by the first respondent and had been paying the rent to the first respondent and thereby, the respondents have become liable to be evicted from the property. Further, the property is an old building put up with tin sheets and mud walls and the mud walls of the building had developed many cracks and if the building is demolished and reconstructed, it will yield good returns and taking into consideration the locality of the building and also the fact that the petitioner has sufficient means to demolish and reconstruct the building and hence, the petitioner requires the building for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction and the petitioner undertakes to demolish the building within the time allowed by law and the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to vacate the building and the respondents had sent a reply containing false allegations and hence, the petition.
4. The case of the respondents, in brief, is that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the first respondent had subleased the property to the respondents 2 to 4. In fact, the first respondent had become the tenant of the property even under the petitioner's vendor and the tenancy agreement with the erstwhile landlord was oral and after the petitioner purchased the property, the tenancy was attorned in his favour and the first respondent had been given permission to sublease the property by the erstwhile landlord and the same is also known to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is estopped from raising the case of sublease against the respondents. It is false to state that the building is an old one and it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction as the mud walls had developed cracks and thus, if the same is demolished and reconstructed, it would yield good returns. The petitioner has no means to demolish and reconstruct the building and only with a mala fide intention, the said ground has been raised by the petitioner. Notice sent by the petitioner has been duly replied by the respondents and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. In support of the petitioner's case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P23 were marked and on the side of the respondents', R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked and in addition to that, Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked.
6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the Rent Controller was pleased to allow the petition preferred by the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the respondents has also come to be dismissed. Hence, the civil revision petition.
7. The following points arise for consideration:
i. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek for eviction of the respondents on the grounds stated in the petition? and ii. To what relief the revision petitioners are entitled to?
POINT NO.I:
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the property. It is further seen that the first respondent had taken the tenancy of the property even prior to the purchase of the property by the petitioner. Now, according to the petitioner, without any authority, the first respondent had subleased the property to the respondents 2 to 4 and it is only the respondents 2 to 4, who are in possession of the property and they are paying the rent to the first respondent and hence, the respondents are liable to be evicted from the property on the ground of sublease. The said fact is disputed by the respondents and it is contended that the first respondent had become the tenant under the erstwhile landlord and with his permission only, the property had been subleased to the respondents 2 to 4 and the same is also known to the petitioner at the time of the purchase of the property and the petitioner had also acquiesced to the same and hence, the petitioner cannot now challenge the sublease made by the first respondent in respect of the property and hence, the eviction sought for by the petitioner on that ground is liable to be rejected.
9. However, considering the materials placed, it is found that there is no adequate proof produced on the side of the respondents that the first respondent had been granted the permission to sublease the property by the erstwhile landlord. With reference to the same, no proof whatsoever is placed. Further, to establish the said fact, the erstwhile landlord had not been examined. Further, it is also not established that the petitioner, after the purchase of the property, had acquiesced to the sublease made by the first respondent in favour of the respondents 2 to 4. Even with reference to the same, there is no acceptable and reliable material as found by the Courts below. It is, thus, found that the Courts below have rightly found that the first respondent, without any authority, subleased the property in favour of the respondents 2 to 4 and in such view of the matter, it is found that the respondents are liable to be evicted from the property on the ground of sublease as claimed by the petitioner.
10. The petitioner has also pleaded that the building is an old one put up with tin sheets and mud walls and the mud walls had developed cracks at various places and in such view of the matter, if the said building is demolished and a new construction is put up therein, considering the locality of the property, the said venture will yield good returns and hence also sought for eviction of the respondents on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The above said case of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents contending that the building is not old building as claimed by the petitioner and the building also does not require any immediate demolition as it is in a good condition and the walls of the building had not developed cracks as put forth by the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner that he has means to demolish and put up new construction is false and not accepted and the ground of demolition and reconstruction sought for by the petitioner is only to evict the respondents one way or the other and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. It is found that to sustain the above ground, the petitioner has examined the Engineer as P.W.2 and the report and plan of the Commissioner have also been marked as Exs.C1 and C2 and on the side of the respondents, the Engineer's report has been marked as Ex.R3 and on a cumulative reading of the above said oral and documentary evidence, it is found that as seen by the Courts below also, the building is an old one and put up with tin sheets and the walls had developed cracks at various places and in such view of the matter, considering the location of the property being in a prime area and as rightly found by the Courts below, if the same is demolished and a new building is constructed therein, it would yield good result and therefore, the plea of demolition and reconstruction sought for by the petitioner as a ground for eviction of the respondents is bona fide. It is further found that the petitioner has adequate means to put up new construction in the property as seen from the income tax returns produced and in such view of the matter, it is found that the Courts below had rightly accepted the grounds put forth by the petitioner for eviction of the respondents. Accordingly, the Point No.I is answered.
POINT NO.II:
12. In view of the foregoing reasons, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 26.09.2006, passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai, in R.C.A.No.86 of 2000, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 10.04.2000, passed in R.C.O.P.No.363 of 1990, on the file of the Rent Controller / District Munsif Court, Madurai, are confirmed and resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai.
2.The District Munsif, Rent Controller, Madurai.
.