M M JAFFAR AND CO COIMBATORE Vs. COIMBATORE BEARING STORES PROP T S DAYALAN 51 COMMERCIAL ROAD OTHAGAMANDALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/landlords who failed in their attempt to get the order of eviction before the authorities below, have filed the above revisions.

(2.) THERE are six portions in the building in question and five tenants are occupying the said building in the respective portions. According to the petitioners, on 31.10.1984, the then Prime Minister of India was assassinated at New Delhi and an unprecedented violence in the city of Coimbatore had sparked off. The building belonging to the petitioners which is in the occupation of the tenants was also attacked by goondas who set fire to the building, due to which the building suffered extensive damage. On the basis that the building had suffered substantial damage which is permanent in nature and it is unfit for the purpose of occupation and also on the ground that the petitioners proposed to erect a new modern building in the site, filed R.C.O.P.Nos.366 to 391 of 1984 to the effect that they require the building bona fide for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. It is stated specifically that the petitioners have capacity to construct such a building. They have also given undertaking which is required under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act herein after called as 'the Act'. But, we are concerned in these revisions only with respect to R.C.O.P.Nos.367, 368 and 370 of 1984, filed on the file of the learned Rent controller, Coimbatore. The respective tenants in these R.C.O.Ps. filed counter disputing the bona fide intention of the landlords. They have also denied the fact that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction immediately. According to them, the building is in good condition and there is no necessity to demolish and reconstruct the same. It is also their case that there are other tenants also and without evicting them, the building in question cannot be demolished and reconstructed. An advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the Rent Controller and he visited the building before the same was repaired by the tenants and also after repairing the building, and he filed his report. The Rent Controller after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved against the same, the landlords filed appeals in R.C.A.Nos. 63 to 65 of 1992 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority, Coimbatore. The appellate authority also rejected the appeals holding that the building in question does not require immediate demolition and reconstruction. Still aggrieved, the petitioners/landlords have filed the above revisions.

(3.) IN this case, the petitioners have come forward with the petitions not only on the ground that the building had damaged extensively and it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction but also on the ground that he wants to put up a modern new building in the said site. It is held in various decisions, that to maintain the petition under section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord should satisfy three conditions, namely, (1) the bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object to get rid of the tenants, (2) the age and condition of the building and (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building It has been held in a number of decisions that the building in question need not be in dilapidated condition and in a dangerous state of affairs for ordering the petition under Section 14(1) (b) of the Act.