This revision arises out the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the revision petitioner before this Court is the tenant.
2. The landlord the first respondent herein, sought for eviction of premises on the ground that he wants to demolish and reconstruct his property to fetch more income. The revision petitioner herein contested the petition on the ground that the landlord lacks bonafide. The building need not be demolished, since it is not in a dilapidated condition. Further, it was contended that the landlord has no wherewithal to construct and the second respondent in the original petition is a different entity and he cannot be clubbed along with this eviction petition. With the motive to get more rent, the landlord has preferred the petition for eviction. It was also contended by the tenant that the landlord has not obtained permission or leave of the court for converting business premises into residential premises. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. While the Rent Controller/Tribunal accepted the plea of the tenant and dismissed the eviction petition, in the appeal filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the finding of the Tribunal was reversed and the tenant was given three months time to vacate the premises and to handover the vacant position to the landlord.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant has preferred the present revision petition on the ground that the appellate Court has failed to consider the standing of the building which does not require demolition and also failed to see the malafide intention of the petitioner/landlord. The failure of the landlord to give an undertaking to complete the demolition in three months and start construction ought to have been taken note by the appellate court and allowed the appeal. Further the failure of the landlord to get permission under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu buildings (lease and rent control) Act, for the conversion of the premises has been completely lost sight by the Appellate Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel strongly emphasized the point that any petition under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act, must mandatorily carry an undertaking by the landlord that the work of demolition shall be substantially commenced by him not later than one month and shall be completed on expiry of three months from the date of recovery of possession of the entire building. In the present case, the landlord has failed to give such undertaking as mandated under Section 14(2)(b) which shall render the eviction petition per se non maintainable.
6. Apart from the above submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also submit that the landlord has not established his bonafide requirement of the building in the manner known to law and therefore, the Appellate Authority ought not to have reverse the finding of the Rent control Tribunal.
7. A perusal of the pleadings, evidence and the Judgment rendered by the First Appellate court goes to show that there is no error in the Judgment of the First Appellate Court. As far as the mandatory condition contemplated under section 14(2)(b) of the Act, the landlord has pleaded and proved why the building has to be demolished and he has specifically stated in paragraph-6 of the petition that he undertakes to comply with the statutory demands for commencing and completion of the building. Such an undertaking expressly made by the landlord is suffice to satisfy the conditions imposed under Section 14(2) (b) of the Act. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal on this ground.
8. As far as the contention of the revision petitioner regarding the conversion of the nature of the building, it is to be noted that under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, only if residential building is converted into non residential building permission in writing of the controller is required and not vice versa. In this case, the facts pleaded and proved is that the revision petitioner is in occupation of the premises and running pawn broker business. Now the landlord has sought for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction to put up residential premises. Therefore, the facts of the case does not attract Section 21 of the Act. Hence on this ground also the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Insofar as bonafide of the landlord is concerned, one cannot presume that the landlord is not a man of means to demolish the building and put up new construction, just because he has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the tenant. It is pertinent to note that the tenant is carrying on pawn broker business. The landlord has borrowed money from him and defraying the interest payable towards rent. This will not give a presumption that the landlord is not a man of means. It is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that he can mobilize money through her own source and from his mother who is an income tax assessee.
G.JAYACHANDRAN,J kkd
10. Therefore, this Court finds that the revision petitioner has failed on all grounds and no justification available to interfere the appellate Court findings.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed, by confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2005 made in RCA.No.15 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.01.2017 Index : Yes/No kkd To
1. Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam .
2. The Rent Controller/District Munsif, Nagapattinam.
Pre delivery Order in C.R.P.(NPD)No.833 of 2005 & C.M.P.No.6261 of 2005 http://www.judis.nic.in