This petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) to set aside the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in R.C.A.No.20 of 2003 dated 06.01.2005 in confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, passed in R.C.O.P.No.70 of 2001, dated 04.07.2003 and allow the civil revision petition.
2. In the petition for eviction, the landlord has alleged as follows:-
2.1.The respondent is tenant under the petitioner. The demised premises was a larger extent which originally belonged to one Urmilaben. She sold the western portion to the petitioner and eastern portion to the respondent. The respondent is none other than the petitioner's husband's younger brother. Since the petitioner was not in station, it was leased out to the respondent for a sum of Rs.250/- as monthly rent. Subsequently, it became Rs.650/- per month. Both the parties purchased properties under separate sale deeds. The respondent is running a business of selling home appliances under the name and style of M/s.Sivaram Traders in the demised premises. The petitioner's husband got retirement on superannuation and has come down to Pondicherry to settle. He died in the year 1994. After his death, the petitioner has been persuading the respondent to deliver the demised premises which is highly dilapidated and decayed and the roofing is likely to collapse at any moment. It is more than 100 years old requiring demolition and reconstruction.
2.2. The petitioner also intends to commence a business in the demised premises after demolition. Several demands made by her in person through mediators for delivery of property has ended in vain. Hence, on 01.09.2001, a Lawyer's notice was issued to the respondent. The petitioner has got approved plan for reconstruction by the Town Planning Authorities. She has got adequate resources for putting up construction. The respondent gave an evasive reply on 19.09.2001. Hence, the eviction may be ordered.
3. In the counter filed by the tenant, following are avements are seen:-
3.1. All the parties who are entitled to the estate of late Venkatadri, husband of the petitioner have not been joined as parties. All other allegations with regard to the purchase of the property, that the landlord required the building for demolition and reconstruction and that it is in dilapidated condition are denied. The entire building is non-residential building for the past over 38 years and the same is only a big hall. The entire building was purchased jointly in the names of this respondent and his eldest brother Venkatadri. However, the entire building continued to remain in one block without any partition, as this respondent and his father had already been doing business in the premises under the previous owner as tenant. The building is only 45 years old. It is in good condition which does not require demolition. The entire building has been constructed in such a way and one half, whether it is east or west, cannot be demolished without demolishing the other half in piece-meal. The said Venkatadri died leaving behind the petitioner and two sons. One of whom is in the United States.
3.2. In fact, she has converted the front portion of the building as she is residing and leased the same to a Company which is storing and selling milk products. If he is evicted, the respondent will be put to a great hardship, since he has sold household appliances to several persons on credit basis. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
4. The learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, on 04.07.2003, passed an order of eviction finding bona fide in the requirement of the landlord. This petitioner carried the matter in appeal in R.C.A.No.20 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry and the appeal was also dismissed on 06.01.2005 after confirming the eviction order. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Even though it is disputed by the appellant in his counter that himself and his brother Venkatadri purchased the properties jointly, the fact remains that two separate sale deeds were executed by Urmilaben with regard to the western and eastern portions of the properties as evident from P.1, the sale deed, dated 10.03.1977. It is in favour of this respondent. In the said deed, the property conveyed was described within specific boundaries and there is no mention as to the joint purchase. The respondent says that she is bona fide requiring the building for demolition and reconstruction since it is old.
6. Concededly, neither of the parties has taken steps for appointment of Commissioner for ascertaining the age and condition of the building. However, from Ex.P.1, it transpires that the building was 75 years old on the date of sale. i.e. in 1977. The petition has been filed in 2001. Hence, it could be unhesitatingly held that the building is 100 years old. R.W.2 claims to be an Architect, who deposes that he constructed the basement, ground floor, first and second floors with Madras terrace, that it is in good condition and that if the western portion is demolished, the eastern portion would fell down without lateral support. However, in his cross-examination, he admits that if a wall is erected in the middle of the building, the other portion could be safeguarded without any damage. On that basis, the learned Rent Controller has proceeded. Both the authorities below are of the opinion that there can be no damage to the portion belonging to the appellant, when the portion, which belongs to the respondent is demolished, if a wall is constructed. This Court is also of the considered opinion that necessary safeguards could be taken by erecting a wall after consultation with a qualified Engineer so as to ensure that no damage is caused to the construction belonging to the appellant.
7. In order to show her bona fide, the respondent has produced a building approved plan by Pondicherry Planning Authority, Ex.P.5, dated 02.08.2001. She has also produced copies of fixed deposit receipts in Ex.P.6 series which shows that she is possessing necessary funds for demolition and reconstruction.
8. In the matter of requirement by the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Vijay Singh Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, reported in 1996 (6) SCC 475, has formulated principles which have been followed by the Supreme Court in various subsequent decisions and one among which is in 2003(1) SCC 191, Jagat Pal Dhawan Vs. Kahan Singh, in which it is stated as follows:-
8.The Constitution Bench in Vijay singh V. Vijayalakshmi Ammal authoritatively pronounced that for granting permission under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act the relevant factors are; (i) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get ride of tenants. (ii)the age and condition of the building and (iii) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. However, the constitution bench cautioned that these are only some of the illustrative factors to be taken into consideration along with other factors and no court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building.
9. In the above said decision, in Jagat Pal Dhawan's case, it is also held that the bona fides of the requirement would not have been doubted solely on the ground that the structure of the building though old and outdated had not gone so weak, as was needed to be demolished immediately.
10. The subsequent decision of the Supreme Court has clarified the position. In 2004 (5) SCC 241, (P.S.Pareed Kaka and Others Vs. Shafee Ahmed Saheb), the Apex Court has observed as follows:-
11.Law is well settled on this aspect. Even if the building is in a good condition, if it is not suitable for the requirement of the landlord, he can always demolish even a good building and put up a new building to suit his requirements. It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the condition of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition particularly when the premises is required by the landlord. Therefore, it has to be held that the finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained and the High Court on reappreciation of the evidence, rightly so, held that the landlord has established that his need for all the four petition schedule premises is bona fide and reasonable.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in 1965 (1) MLJ 86, D.Kuppuswami Chettiar and others V. A.R.C.B.Balagurumurthi Chettiar and Others, and 1998 (1) Law Weekly 268, G.Manoharan Vs. K.A.Lakshmanan, by contending that since the respondent is a co-owner of the building with other sons, in the absence of other co-owners on the array of parties, she is not entitled to get eviction. But the sale deed Ex.P.1 stands in her name. Hence, she is the owner of the property. No question of co-ownership in the demised premises would arise.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent draws attention of this Court to an earlier decision of this Court in 1984 (1) MLJ 314, Meyyappa Chettiar and another Vs. K.N.Balakrishnan and another, wherein, it is held that the concurrent findings passed on evidence ought not to be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Building Lease and Rent Control Act.
13. In view of this Court, on the materials available before the authorities, they have appropriately recorded factual findings that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and no grounds are made out to interfere with them in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 25 of the Act.
14. To sum up, the landlord has established that she bona fide requires the building for demolition and reconstruction. The findings rendered by the authorities below do not call for any interference from this Court which have to be confirmed and accordingly, confirmed. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits, which suffers dismissal.
In fine, the civil revision petition stands dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed. Time for delivery three months.
ssm To
(i) The II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.
(ii)The Rent Controller, Pondicherry