This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.17 of 2003, setting aside the dismissal order of Rent Control Tribunal in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2000.
2.The brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 Originally the property was owned by Thuraiyur Periya Madam represented by its Atheenakarthar. The suit, R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2000 was filed by Thuraiyur Periya Madam against the revision petitioner herein who was running a mini super market in the premises, since 1944. The admitted rent is Rs.1,750/-(Rupees one thousand seven hundred and fifty only). There was some communication between erstwhile owner and the tenant to enhance the rent. But it did not fructify. Later it landed up in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2000 filed for eviction, on the ground that of demolition and re-construction.
2.2 The Trial Court negatived the plea and dismissed R.C.O.P. 7 of 2000 on 27.02.2003. Aggrieved by that the landlord preferred R.C.A.No.17 of 2003 which was allowed on 27.11.2008. Against the reversing Judgment the tenant preferred Revision Petition, C.R.P.No.361 of 2009. Pending disposal of the said revision petition, one Mr.R.Balamuralidharan has purchased the property and got himself impleaded as one of the respondents in the said revision petition.
2.3 Since, there was a change in circumstances, the very maintainability of the rent control proceedings initiated by the erstwhile owner was subjected to judicial scrutiny before the Revision Court, wherein this Court has remanded the matter back to the first Appellate Court for affording an opportunity to the purchaser/2nd respondent to peruse the litigation. For better understanding relevant portion of the Judgment rendered in C.R.P.No.361 of 2009 is extracted below:
?17.In this case, in my opinion, the condition of the building is irrelevant even though there is an attempt on the part of the first respondent to prove that the building is very old and it is in a dilapidated condition and also attempted to prove the same by appointing the advocate commissioner, who also submitted a report with plan. More than the condition of the building, the bona-fide requirement of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction and means of the subsequent purchaser has to be proved and that can be done only during trial and it cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavits or statement made in the petition.
...
19.In the result, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and remand the matter to the appellate authority viz., the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichy, for the limited purpose of recording a finding as to the means and the bona-fides of the purchaser in seeking eviction. The purchaser, the 2nd respondent herein, is allowed to let in evidence to show his bona- fide and his means to put up new construction and sufficient opportunity shall be given to the tenant to rebut the evidence of the purchaser and the matter is remanded only for that limited purpose. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to conclude the process of taking evidence within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on the basis of the evidence adduced shall pass appropriate orders within the time stipulated above and the parties are directed to co-operate with the Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within the stipulated time to the extent indicated above. Consequently,connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.?
2.4 Pursuant to the remand order, the first Appellate Court has afforded an opportunity to the second respondent herein, who has mounted the witness box and deposed as PW2. He has marked exhibits P-9 to P-12 and has subjected himself for cross examination.
2.5 Order of remand of this Court was to ascertain the means and the bona fide of the purchaser in seeking eviction. The first appellate Court after examination of all the witnesses and appreciating the evidence let in by the respective parties, has allowed the appeal, ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.
3. Aggrieved by the order of Appellate Court in R.C.A.No.17 of 2003 dated 25.02.2014, the present revision petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that without pleading and expressing his willingness to demolition and reconstruction and without materials to show the bona fide requirement, the Appellate Authority with a preconceive notion has held in favour of second respondent referring him as a bona fide purchaser and the building needs demolition and the second respondent having wherewithal to reconstruct.
5. The incise reading of the chief examination indicates that Balamuralidaran/PW2 is an Lecturer in Manachanallur Arts College earning Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as salary per month. He is running a petrol bunk and also involved in Real Estate business. He has property to an extent of 16 acres and he has made preparations for demolishing the building and to put up new construction.
6. To substantiate these averments made in the proof affidavit filed in lieu of the chief examination, he has marked exhibits P9 to P12. Ex.P9 is the photocopy of the sale deed in respect of the demise premises to show that the second respondent has purchased the property on 08.12.2008, when revision petition was pending before this Court. Ex.P10 is the blue print of the proposed building. Ex.P11 is his application to the Thuraiyur Municipality to put up construction in the proposed site. Ex.P12 pertains to a sale deed in respect of 16 acres of land purchased by him on 14.03.2011.
7. In the cross examination, it has been elucidated that though the second respondent claims to be employed in Manachanallur Arts College as Lecturer, he has not filed any document to substantiate the same. He has not filed any document to show that he owned a petrol bunk. He has not filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) statement. He has not filed any evidence to show that he is carrying out real estate business. In fact he admits that during the year 2005 to 2010, he was doing real estate business but due to paucity of time, he has stopped doing that business. It is also admitted by him in the course of examination that the property in Ex.P12 is an agricultural land and without the permission of the Government, it cannot be converted into residential or commercial land. He has not filed any document to show that he has intention to sell the property either as an agricultural land or convert it and sell the same as residential or industrial land.
8. The scrutiny of the above testimony of the second respondent clearly indicates that he has not placed documents before the Court to show his wherewithal.
9. In such circumstances, the exhibits which are placed before the Court, at the most can only indicate that the respondent has made certain preparations for demolishing the premises and sought permission for the proposed building. That by itself cannot give an inference or a proof or means to construct. Without any documentary evidence, Ocular evidence is not worth, when the Court has given liberty to the petitioner to prove his bona fide as well as his capacity to demolish and re-
construct the building.
10. Court cannot presume the capacity of the petitioner san documents to support the said claims.
11. This Court finds merit in this revision petition, which requires interference in the finding of the Appellate Authority.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent, in the course of the arguments, submitted that the building is more than 120 years old and it is in very precarious condition due to its instability. He also stated that the Municipal Authorities have been informed about the instability of the building, which may endanger the safety of the public. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Municipal authorities, if any such situation prevails. The Executive/Municipal authorities is at liberty to deal with the petition about the stability of the building in accordance with law and take appropriate decision.
13. In result, this revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.17 of 2003 dated 25.02.2014. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.