The landlord is the revision petitioner herein. This Civil Revision Petition has arisen out of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as the Act) for eviction of the respondent/tenant from the property belonging to the petitioner/landlord under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Act.
2. The petition mentioned premises is a non residential one and the landlord had purchased the same from her predecessors through their Power Agent namely E.Kailasam by a registered sale deed dated 31.5.2004. The respondent is the tenant even with the predecessors of the petitioner from 28.2.1990 and attorned his tenancy to the petitioner from 1.6.2004.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she has been carrying on tailoring business under the name and style of Venus Tailors in a rental building on a monthly rent of Rs.1200/- in the same area and for the purpose of accommodating her staff and to keep the thread stock she had taken another building on a monthly rent of Rs.1800/- and in all, she has been paying a sum of Rs.3000/- p.m. as rent and to develop her business and to augment her income, she need the petition mentioned premises. Further the petition mentioned premises is more than 70 years old and it is in a dilapidated condition and therefore, she wants to demolish the premises in question and reconstruct it. She has stated that she has got sufficient means and obtained necessary plan from the Municipality concerned for putting up a new construction.
4. The trial court upheld the requirements of the landlord and passed an order of eviction on two grounds under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Act, which was reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority at the instance of the tenant. The Rent Control Appellate Authority held that there was no bona fide requirement for her own occupation to carry on the tailoring business and the case for demolition and reconstruction was not made out. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord.
5. Though the eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful default, but the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not pressing the said ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove that she is running the tailoring business in a rental building without considering the admission made by the respondent/tenant that the landlord is running the business in a rental premises which situate four shops ahead of the petition premises. The Rent Controller has referred to the said admission made by the respondent in his cross examination that the landlord is running the tailoring business in a rented shop lying in the same street and the extent is also very small. The landlord filed Ex.P10 cards to show that she is carrying on tailoring business and it is not the case of the respondent that it does not relate to the said premises. Even in the petition filed by the landlord for eviction, her address is given as Venus Tailors at Door No.84, South Mada Street, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District which is not her own building. This aspect has not been disputed by the respondent.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that she does not own any non residential building than the petition premises. In her evidence she has only stated that she owns a residential building in KTC Nagar, which cannot be said that it is suitable for her to run the tailoring business.
7. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is running her tailoring business in a rented premises and she does not have any other non residential premises available within the city to satisfy her requirement. The request of the landlord, who is already engaged in a commercial activities but in a rental building cannot be said to be not acting bona fide when she claims the tenancy premises of her own to satisfy her own requirement for continuing her tailoring business by shifting the same to the petition mentioned premises.
8. In the decision of the Principal Bench of this Court rendered in the case of S.V.Janardanam and another Vs. D.Kivraj Sowkar and two others [2002-2-LW-611], it is held that when the landlord, who owns the property filed an application under Sections 10(3)(a)(i) or 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the authorities under the Act have to draw a presumption in favour of the bona fide requirements of the landlord. It is further held thus:-
"It is now well settled that when an application is filed under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) and the requirements of the provisions are satisfied, it is not for the tenant to say that the property is suitable or not suitable to the petitioners' requirement. Further when the landlord who owns the property filed an application under Sections 10(3)(a)(i) or 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the authorities under the Act have to draw an presumption in favour of the bona fide requirement of the landlord "
It is the same view of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [1998-III-CTC-679], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has dealt with the bona fide requirement of the landlord in paragraph 14 of the judgement and has held thus:- "14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, The Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to who else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenants premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to who else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
9. It is pertinent to point that in so far as the non residential building is concerned, the Act does not say that if the landlord owned more than one building, he or she would not be entitled to an order of eviction. It is entirely upon the petitioner/landlord to choose which building he or she would require for occupation for his or her sons to carry on their business. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that there is no bona fide requirement of the petitioner to carry on the business.
10. As regards the other ground that the petition mentioned premises is a very old building and there is a requirement to demolish the same and further the petitioner needs the building to carryon on her tailoring business after putting up a new construction, in the petition she has averred that she had taken steps to get plan sanctioned from the Municipality concerned and had already applied for approval of the plan. She has further stated that she has made arrangements for getting loan from the Bank and so, in all respects had taken steps to demolish the existing superstructure and put up a new construction to suit her requirement. In her evidence, she has reiterated the same.
11. The petition premises is 70 years old according to the landlord and the respondent has not specified about the age of the building in his cross examination except stating that it would be of 60 years old. The Advocate Commissioner has inspected the building and filed his report, which has been marked as Exs.C1 and C2 and the Engineer's Report has been marked as Ex.C3. The Engineer in Ex.C3 has given the age of the building as 70 years and has found cracks on the walls. Above said reports of the Advocate Commissioner and the Engineer clearly indicate that the building is a old building and it requires demolition.
12. It is settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of the records and that therefore, the report cannot be overlooked or rejected without any justification. Exs.P11 to P14 are the deposits made by the petitioner in the Nationalized Bank and Post Office and it would prove her means to erect a new building. That apart, her husband is employed in the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation and the petitioner is also getting sizeable income from the tailoring business.
13. When the building is 60 to 70 years old, which requires immediate demolition, there is nothing wrong in the petitioner proposing to demolish such an old building and instead construct a modern and spacious complex so as to make better use of the property and augment her income. There is no reason to assume that the need for demolition and reconstruction deposed to by the landlord is unnatural or lacking in sincerity and there is no material on record to hold that she was merely attempting to find out a pretent or ruse to get rid of the tenant.
14. The reasoning adopted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority was under a factual misappropriation of evidence. It is seen that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was much impressed by the fact that the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner not to dispossess him except under due process of law and this had been taken as a factor to hold that the petitioner's intention was only to evict the tenant. It is brought to the notice of this court by the petitioner that she filed a memo conceding that she would not disturb his possession except under due process of law and it does not mean that the petitioner should not file a eviction petition against the tenant and she had filed it only with a mala fide intention.
15. Another factor, which the Rent Control Appellate Authority has adverted to, is with regard to the demolition of common walls of the adjacent owners, which according to the Rent Control Appellate Authority without getting consent of the adjacent owners, the commons walls cannot be demolished and therefore, it is not possible to demolish the petition mentioned premises does not merit acceptance. It is the case of the petitioner that except the common walls on the northern and southern sides, the other portions could be demolished, for which the consent of the adjacent owners is not necessary. In fact necessary plan has been sanctioned by the Municipality concerned under Ex.P7 proceedings to erect a new building without demolishing the compound wall on the northern and southern side. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has wrongly assumed that the entire structure cannot be demolished without getting consent from the adjacent owners.
16. To make out a case under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord has to satisfy the authorities that the building is bona fidely required by the landlord for immediate purpose of demolishing it and the purpose of such demolition is to erect a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. On being satisfied the authorities shall direct the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord.
17. The Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal [1996-6-SCC-475] has held that for recording a finding that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide, the authorities have to take into account (i) the bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenant, (ii) the age and condition of the building and (iii) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. It also added that no court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building, which is the factor to be taken into consideration along with the other factors. The term "immediate" as qualifying demolition suggests a proximity of purpose and not proximity of time or the urgency of demolition.
18. In the case of S.Venugopal Vs. A.Karruppusamy and another [2006-2-CTC-615], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that as regards the bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction, the condition of the building is not material when the landlord wants to demolish the owned structure in order to build a multi-storeyed building so as to get better return of the investment. It held that even if the landlord had not given the details regarding funds for construction, it will not militate against his claim, since raising funds for constructing commercial structure is not difficult as the Bank and Financial Institutions are willing to advance such funds.
19. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ramniklal Pitambardardas Mehta Vs. Indradaman Amratlal Shekh [AIR-1964-SC-1676] that where the case pleaded by the landlord is that he wants to demolish and reconstruct the tenancy premises before occupying the same for his own requirement, the nature of requirement pleaded would be one of the bona fide requirements.
20. The law is well settled that if the authorities failed to consider the materials placed before it, this court can interfere under Section 25 of the Act to decide as to whether the authority below approached the question from proper angle.
21. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the requirement of the petitioner is not bona fide and no case is made out for demolition and reconstruction is not sustainable and hence, the impugned order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. Relief of eviction is granted in favour of the petitioner/landlord by allowing this Civil Revision Petition both on the grounds under Sections under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Act. No costs. Considering his occupation of the premises for long years, the tenant is given two months time to vacate the premises from the date of this order on condition that he should file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks from today to that effect, failing which the time granted to vacate the premises shall stand automatically vacated.
Srcm To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli
2. The Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli