N SAMBASIVAM Vs. ABDUL SATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed by the landlord, the owner of the premises bearing Door No. 11, Gopalapuram, Second Street, Madras-86 against the order of the appellate authority and the Third Judge of Court of Small Causes, Madras in H.R.A. No. 160 of 1978. The landlord originally filed an application in H.R.C. No. 2052 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller and the 7th Judge of Court of Small Causes, Madras seeking to evict the tenant, the respondent herein, on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent from December, 1974 to June, 1975 and on the ground that the landlord required the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in the case came to the conclusion that the case of the landlord that the tenant is guilty of wilful default in payment of rent cannot be upheld. The learned Rent Controller also found that the claim of the landlord for eviction on the ground that he required the premises for demolition and reconstruction to be bona fide and ordered eviction of the tenant.

(2.) AS against the orders of the Rent Controller evicting the tenant under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the tenant filed an appeal to the appellate authority and the Third Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras in H.R.A. No. 160 of 1978. The learned appellate-authority after examining the orders of the Rent Controller and after going through the evidence in this case came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the proved that he has got means to reconstruct the building and that the claim of the landlord under section 14(1)(b) of the Act is not bona fide and allowed the appeal of the tenant and dismissed the Rent Control Petition. AS against the orders of the appellate authority this civil revision petition has been filed by the landlord questioning the orders of the appellate authority.

(3.) WITH reference to the construction Exhibits P-1 and P-2 are the two plans filed by the landlord to show that he applied for sanction for the proposed reconstruction from the Corporation. A perusal of both the plans Exhibits P-1 and P-2 will show that the proposed reconstruction is to be undertaken on the up-stair of the premises. Both these plans do not show that any construction is to be made in the place where the petition-mentioned shop stands. Exhibit P-1 is the plan sanctioned by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority on 30th July, 1977 as per the proceedings of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority in M.C. No. 1855|n, dated 30th July, 1977. In this plan the proposed up stair portion and the Garage portion to be newly constructed are shown in red colour. The proposed stair-case to be constructed behind the petition-mentioned shop is also shown in red colour. The petition-mentioned premises is shown in, yellow colour. No condition was imposed at the time when the plan Exhibit P-1 was sanctioned for construction of staircase for the up-stair. Exhibit P-1 is described as the plan showing the proposed construction and alteration to the existing building bearing Door No. 11, Gopalapuram, Second Street, 72nd Division, Madras. In another plan filed by the landlord, viz., Exhibit P-2, the proposed additional construction and alterations are the same as that in Exhibit P-1. The order of sanction in Exhibit P-1 is stated to be made on 30th July, 1977, whereas the order of sanction in Exhibit P-2 is stated to be 1st October, 1977, i.e., two months later after the sanction of plan in Exhibit P-1. But in Exhibit P-2 we find a condition that the plan is sanctioned subject to the condition that the shop in front is to be demolished within six months. The landlord as P.W.1 states that Exhibit P-1 is the sanctioned plan and that Exhibit P-2 is the sanctioned plan for construction of the up-stair portion. No explanation is forthcoming as to why there are two plans for the sanction of the same construction and addition and why no condition is imposed in one plan and a condition that the petition-mentioned shop is to be demolished within six months is imposed in another plan. It is also not the case of the landlord that the presence of the shop infringes any of the building rules. In the absence of proper explanation as to the presence of two plans for the construction and as to why a condition for demolition of the petition-mentioned shop is imposed only in Exhibit P-2, the case of the tenant that the endorsement in the plan that the petition-mentioned shop should be demolished within six months is procured just for the purpose of evicting the tenant will have to be accepted. Though in the application, the landlord slates that the building is old and also in dilapidated condition, he had not even spoken a word in his evidence about the condition of the building before the Rent Controller. This is also a circumstances against the bona fides of the landlord.