AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandra Baabu, J.—The Revision petitioner is the tenant. They are aggrieved against the order of eviction concurrently passed by
both the courts below u/s 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The respondent herein as landlord filed
R.C.O.P. No. 2156 of 2007 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai seeking for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of demolition and
reconstruction. According to the landlord, the petition premises is in a dilapidated condition and it may collapse at any time and therefore the
building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. It is also stated by them that they have got sufficient means to construct the building.
Apart from that, it is contended by them that the proposed reconstruction would be beneficial and advantageous to their business. The Corporation
of Chennai also permitted the landlord to demolish and reconstruct the building and sanctioned the building plan.
The said application was resisted by the tenant viz., the petitioner herein. The learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition by his order
dated 18.10.2011. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 630 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control
Appellate Authority, Chennai. The Appellate Authority, by an order dated 15.2.2013, dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the order of
eviction. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit as follows:-
There is no bonafide requirement on the part of the landlord. The learned appellate authority failed to consider the additional evidence let in under
Ex. R7 showing that the landlord did not obtain planning permission and only a third party obtained planning permission in respect of petition
premises. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the requirement is not for the benefit of the landlord and for a third party. The permission granted
by the Corporation of Chennai for demolition and reconstruction got expired even before filing the R.C.O.P. and no renewal was obtained by the
landlord. It is further contended by him that the appellate authority has passed a cryptic order without discussing the facts and circumstances in
detail in respect of Ex. R7. The appellate authority should give reasons for arriving the conclusions and in support of such submission, learned
counsel relied on the decisions reported in C. Shanmugham Vs. N.S.K. Chokkalingam Pillai, ; Chellammal Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal, ; Shantilal
Kesharmal Gandhi Vs. Prabhakar Balkrishna Mahanubhav, ; and K. Periyanayagam Vs. J.K. Savithri and Others, . Thus, the learned counsel
submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the appellate authority for considering Ex. R7.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlord would submit as follows:-
Ex. R7 relates to the building and premises at Door No. 693, whereas the petition premises is at Door No. 695, Anna Salai, Chennai 6.
Therefore, the tenant is not justified in relying on Ex. R7 to contend as if the eviction is sought for to benefit a third party. Notice issued by the
Corporation dated 12.9.2011 was accepted by the tenant in his written argument filed in RCOP. Therefore, they have the full knowledge about the
said notice. Chennai Metro Rail Limited also referred the building as the one under severe damage category, while conducting Pre-Construction
Building Condition survey for construction of underground station at Government Estate etc. The learned counsel, in support of her submissions,
relied on the decisions reported in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Venkatesha Gupta and Others, , S. Venugopal Vs. A. Karruppusami and
Another, and K. Sekar Vs. R. Palanivelu .
The point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the order of eviction passed by the Courts below,
concurrently against the petitioner, is liable to be interfered with?
Both sides admit that the present Door Number of the petition premises is New No. 268 (Old No. 695), Anna Salai, Chennai 600006. The
respondent/landlord seeks eviction of the petitioner on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. It is their contention that the building is in a
dilapidated condition and it may collapse at any time. Apart from contending so, they also stated that as their business is increasing manifold, it will
be beneficial and advantageous for them to demolish and construct a new building. Thus, it is clear that on two reasons they seek demolition and
reconstruction viz., the building is in a dilapidated condition and they want to augment the income.
In so far as the condition of the building is concerned, the landlord have already approached the Corporation and obtained planning permit
which proceedings are marked as Exs. P4 to P7. Thus, their intention to demolish and reconstruct is evident. No doubt, the tenant contends that
the time granted by the Corporation had already expired even before filing the RCOP. That itself cannot be construed as a reason to hold that the
claim is without bona fide, especially under the circumstances that the building which is sought to be demolished is still under the possession of the
petitioner/tenant. Needless to say that only when the petitioner is evicted, the question of demolishing the building would arise. Therefore, the
expiry of the time granted by Corporation cannot be put against the landlord.
More over, both sides admit that the Chennai Metro Rail Limited conducted a Pre-Construction Building Condition survey for construction of
underground stations. Based on the survey a general information is furnished by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited, wherein the present petition
building is shown as the one lying under severe damage category. The said information details are placed before this Court and the same are not
disputed by the petitioner. It is also stated therein that the petition premises is located at a distance of 12.75 meter from the tunnel center line and
that risk category of this building is severe. Apart from the said fact, Chennai Corporation also issued a notice on 12.9.2011 to the landlord u/s
258 of the Chennai City Municipal Act 1919 informing that the petition building is in a ruinous state or dangerous to passers by or to the occupiers
of neighbouring structures and thus the Corporation has called upon the landlord to prevent any danger therefrom. A copy of the said notice is also
placed before this Court. The issuance of the said notice would also show that the building is in a dilapidated condition. Apart from the said fact,
the landlord seeks demolition and reconstruction of a new building also on the reason of to augment their income by contending that their business
is increasing manifold and therefore it would be beneficial and advantageous for them to demolish and reconstruct a new building.
The main contention raised before this Court by the petitioner/tenant is that the appellate authority failed to consider the additional evidence let
in under Ex. R7. According to the tenant, the landlord is seeking eviction not for their benefit of reconstruction but for the benefit of a third party
viz. M/s. Empee International Hotels and Resorts Ltd., in whose favour only the planning permission was granted by the CMDA. Thus, it is
contended by the petitioner that there is no bonafide on the part of the landlord. A perusal of Ex. R7, which is placed in the typed set of papers,
would show that through the said communication CMDA has furnished certain information to the petitioner sought under RTI Act with regard to
the property bearing Door No. 693, Anna Salai, Chennai. It is stated therein that planning permission was granted to M/s. EMPEE International
Hotels and Resorts Ltd., for the property bearing Door No. 693, Anna Salai, Chennai 6 for the construction of multi storeyed Hotel Building. In
the said information, it is further stated that no details of approval accorded to the property bearing Door No. 695, Anna Salai in the name of M/s.
Aruna Construction, the respondent herein. Thus, based on this information, the petitioner contends that the planning permission was obtained by a
third party in respect of the petition mentioned property and therefore there is no bonaifde requirement on the part of the landlord.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, indisputably the petition mentioned property is at Door No. 695, Anna Salai
and not at Door No. 693, Anna Salai to which only the planning permission was granted to the said third party viz., M/s. EMPEE International
Hotels and Resorts Ltd., as could be seen from Ex. R7. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the petition mentioned property
is located only at Door No. 695, Anna Salai, Chennai 6. However, it is his contention that both are under the same survey number. I fail to
understand as to how he is justified in making such a contention to contend that planning permission was granted to the third party in respect of the
petition mentioned premises based on the information furnished under Ex. R7. As already stated supra, the whole information furnished regarding
grant of planning permission is in respect of another property bearing another Door Number viz., Door No. 693 with which the landlord have no
connection and the present premises also does not lie within the said door number. Simply because both door numbers lie on the same survey
number, I fail to understand, whether it could be contended that planning permission was given to the petition premises only. This submission of the
petitioner''s counsel is thus nothing but an absolute absurdity. The information furnished under Ex. R7 is not at all helping the petitioner/tenant, in
any manner as it is totally an irrelevant information in so far as the petition mentioned property is concerned. Therefore, for considering the said Ex.
R7 there is no necessity for remitting the matter back to the lower appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions reported in C. Shanmugham Vs. N.S.K. Chokkalingam Pillai, ; Chellammal
Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal, ; Shantilal Kesharmal Gandhi Vs. Prabhakar Balkrishna Mahanubhav, ; and K. Periyanayagam Vs. J.K. Savithri and
Others, to contend that the order of the lower appellate Court is not legally sustainable in view of the fact that it has not considered Ex. R7.
Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the order of the appellate authority has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back for
considering Ex. R7. I have already found that Ex. R7 is not a document in any way connected with the petition mentioned property and therefore it
is totally an irrelevant document. When that being the finding rendered on Ex. R7, then there is no necessity for this Court to remit the matter back
to the lower appellate Court for considering the said document marked as Ex. R7. Consequently, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel to
contend that the appellate authority has not given any reasons for rejecting the additional evidence let in under Ex. R7 are not relevant for
consideration in the present case.
Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in S. Venugopal Vs. A. Karruppusami and
Another, to contend that the building need not be in a dilapidated condition and it may be demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building as
such dilapidated condition is not a statutory requirement u/s 14(1)(b). The relevant paragraph 7 is extracted below.
On the question of demolition and reconstruction of the premises in question, much was sought to be made out of the fact that the condition of
the building had not been ascertained and, while according to the tenants it was not in a dilapidated condition, according to the landlord it was in a
dilapidated condition. We do not attach much importance to the question as to whether the building was or was not in a dilapidated condition
because Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short ''the Act'') contemplates a building which is
bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it, and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a
new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. Therefore, Section 14(1)(b) does not contemplate that the building sought to be
demolished must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition. Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose
of erecting a new building on the same site.
The other decision relied on is reported in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Venkatesha Gupta and Others, , wherein the Apex Court has
held at paragraph 12 as follows:-
Reverting back to the case at hand, we find that the six tenants are not in full occupation of the entire space available. The landlord proposes to
construct a new and modern building in busy commercial locality of a rising city. The landlord requires a part of the newly constructed building for
his own personal use and such part of the newly constructed building as would be in excess of his own requirement he is willing to let out at current
rate of rent to his tenants which would obviously augment his earnings. The newly constructed double storeyed building, would certainly provide
much more total accommodation than what is available. In such circumstances the offer of the tenant that they are prepared to pay the rent at the
current rate, the one which the landlord expects on reconstruction, becomes irrelevant and should not have prevailed with the High Court.
The other decision relied is reported in K. Sekar Vs. R. Palanivelu , wherein this Court considered similar issue and held at paragraph 30 as
follows:-
..... ...... No doubt, the landlord sought eviction of the tenants on the ground of demolition and reconstruction by contending that the building is
in a dilapidated condition. The tenants would like to rely upon the report filed an engineer in their favour. In my considered view, the ground of
demolition and reconstruction can be raised by the landlord not necessarily when the building is only in a dangerous and dilapidated condition, but
it can be for augmentation of the income also. The landlord can intend to demolish and reconstruct the building on that reason also. Though such
intention is not explicitly stated in the pleadings of the landlord herein, it goes without saying that such intention of augmentation of income on the
part of the landlord is inbuilt in each and every application filed u/s 14(1)(b). ....
In so far as the means to construct the building is concerned, there is no serious objection raised by the petitioner/tenant. In fact, the landlord
themselves is a construction company. They also stated that they have sufficient source to construct a new building, which is not seriously disputed
by the other side. In any event, this Court has already taken a view in similar cases that even assuming that the landlord is not having sufficient
means at the time of making the application for eviction, he can always get the funds from the financial institutions, once he gets the possession of
the building. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order of eviction passed by the Courts below,
concurrently, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.
The petitioner/tenant is given three months time to vacate and hand over possession of the premises to the respondent/landlord. Consequently, the
connected M.P. is closed. No costs.