- (1.) This is an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising against the judgment of the Madras High court in C. R. P. No. 4636 of 1983 dated 23/12/1983. The respondent landlord filed an application under Section 14 (l) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for ejectment of the appellant on the ground that the building is bona fide required for demolition and reconstruction. The trial court ordered ejectment and on appeal it was confirmed. The High court dismissed the revision. Mr Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the sole ground for ejectment was that the building was in dilapidated condition and that it requires demolition and reconstruction. The report of the Commissioner appointed by the Rent Controller, Annx. I, is part of the record. In paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof the Commissioner had stated that the building was in a fit condition and that it does not require demolition. He, therefore, contends that the High court or the courts below had not considered the facts of the report. Non-consideration is an error of law committed by the courts below. We find force in the contentions. We, however, do not express any opinion on merits suffice to state that the Commissioner appointed by the Rent Controller inspected the building and submitted the report in which he had given certain findings in regard to the existing condition of the building and that there is no need for demolition thereof. courts below and the High court ought to have considered the effect of the report and objections if any filed by the respondent. Non-consideration of this material evidence is an error of law glaringly staring from the record. We, therefore, set aside the order. We remit the matter to the High court for consideration of the evidence vis-a-vis the report of the Commissioner to record afresh and record the finding on the need for demolition of the building for reconstruction. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. The High court is requested to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. C. A. No. 3367 of 1984:
(2.) The appeal arises against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller under Section 14 (l) (b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for demolition and reconstruction of the building in question, The finding recorded by the Rent Controller is that the building needs demolition for reconstruction. That finding was confirmed on appeal by the Chief Judge, Small Cause court and the High court. Therefore, it is a concurrent finding of the fact recorded by all the courts. We do not find any compelling necessity to reconsider the finding of fact. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a subsequent agreement of sale by the respondent to sell the property to the appellant and a compromisebased thereon was arrived at but backed out later on. As a consequence a civil suit is pending in the High court for specific performance and an injunction restraining the respondent from transferring the property to third party has been subsisting. Shri Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the respondent stated that against the order of injunction an appeal has been filed and is pending. We do not propose to express any opinion in that regard since both the agreement and injunction order are subject-matter in the suit now pending consideration. But suffice it to say that the decree passed by the Rent Controller would be subject to result in those proceedings. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.;