AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Singaravelu, J.—The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent-landlord who was a minor represented by his mother filed an
application for eviction in respect of a residential building under S. 10 (3) (a) (i) and 14 (1) (b) of Act 18 of 1960, The tenant resisted the
application on both grounds and the Rent Controller found both the points in favour of the landlord and ordered eviction. On appeal, the Appellate
Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal and hence the revision. I have heard learned counsel for both the
parties and perused the orders of the courts below, as well as the pleadings in this case. So far as the ground for demolition and reconstruction
under S. 14 (1) (b) is concerned, the learned counsel for the tenant submits that there is no finding either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate
Authority with reference to the age and condition of the building which is a vital factor to be taken into consideration in assessing the bona fides as
pointed out by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Metalware and Co. etc. Vs. Bansilal Sarma and Co. etc., , I have perused the order
of the Rent Controller. The ground under S. 14(1)(b) has been disposed of in just one short paragraph which describes the exhibits and there is
practically no discussion about the age and condition of the building. Of course, the Rent Controller has relied on the photograph of the building
Ex. A7 and A8. But then, this photograph itself has not been properly proved since the photographer has not been examined. That apart, ordinarily
some technical evidence is usually let in examining the Surveyor or Supervisor or other expert with reference to the age and condition of the
building. The order of the Appellate Authority is also no better in the sense that there is no discussion with regard to the age and condition of the
building or the resources of the landlord. The Appellate Authority has merely commented on the plan and the photograph and confirmed the finding
of the Rent Controller. In my opinion, the courts below are bound to record their findings based on the evidence. In as much as this has not been
done, it violates the spirit of the Supreme Court decision and therefore, this is a fit case for remitting the matter to the Rent Controller for disposing
of the case afresh in the light of the discussion contained herein and in the Supreme Court decision.
With reference to the other point, viz., requirement for own occupation under S. 10(3) (a) (i) also, the evidence is rather scanty. As stated
already, the landlord was a minor represented by his mother. The case of the landlord is that this is a family house and that, in an alleged partition
about which there is no evidence it was allotted to the elder brother of the landlord, who has given evidence as P.W.1. No partition deed has been
filed and this arrangement of partition is assailed by the other side. Under S. 10 (3)(a)(i) the landlord is bound to prove that he is not occupying any
building of his own or that of the members of his family in the town or city as the case may be. This has not been done. Therefore, even on this
ground the matter has to go back to the Rent Controller for receiving further evidence and for proper disposal. The result is, the revision petition is
allowed and the order of eviction is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal in the light of the observations
made above. Both the parties will be at liberty to let in oral and documentary evidence on both the points. Since this R.C.O.P., was filed in 1978
and both the parties are anxious to have an early disposal of the matter, the Rent Controller will give priority and dispose of it within three months
from the date of the receipt of the record. No costs.