R. Govindaraj vs V. Vijayalakshmi

S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioner is the tenant under this respondent / land lady. He has been occupying the building belonging to her. The

respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 52 of 2003 on the file of the (III Additional District Munsif) Tiruchirapalli, under two grounds. One is on wilful

default and another is for demolition and reconstruction. In the petition, she has alleged that the monthly rent for the building occupied by the

petitioner herein was Rs. 300/- and advance received for the said building was Rs. 5,000/-. Presently, the payment of rent is Rs. 500/- per

mensem, that from January, 2003 onwards, the tenant has been in wilful default by non-payment of rent, and that the building is aged about 60

years and hence, it has to be demolished and reconstructed for which she has got necessary funds, that on 18.01.2003, she issued notice to the

petitioner / tenant for which, he sent a reply containing false allegations and hence, eviction has to be ordered.

In the counter filed by this petitioner / tenant, it is stated that even though he was willing to pay the rent from January, 2003 to the landlady, from

28.02.2003 her own sister by name one Bethulakshmi was demanding the rent by sending a notice, that there was misunderstanding among the

family members of the landlady with regard to the family properties, that he filed O.S. No. 254 of 2003 against the said Bethulakshmi, in which he

has deposited the entire arrears of rent, that even though it is intended to be demolished and reconstructed, there is no document to show that it is

an old one and that the petition has been filed with a mala fide intention and hence, it has to be dismissed.

After considering the oral evidence and records adduced by both parties, the learned Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli, dismissed the application

R.C.O.P. No. 52 of 2003. Aggrieved with the same, the landlady / respondent, carried the matter in appeal R.C.A. No. 35 of 2004 on the file of

the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli. The said authority allowed the appeal with costs directing this petitioner to vacate the

building within three months'' from the date of that order. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that there is no material on record to show that there was wilful default and

that there was no delay in payment of rent and that if at all there was some delay, it was due to the misunderstanding among her family members

with regard to the properties and that she has no locus standi to file the eviction petition.

It is his further contention that the respondent has not fulfilled the statutory requirements showing her bona fide for getting the building for the

purpose of demolition and reconstruction.

Conversely, learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the financial position of the petitioner are very much available both in the

pleadings as well as in the oral evidence, that the production of documents would show that her requirement is bona fide one and that the failure on

the part of the petitioner / tenant in not depositing the rental arrears to the tune of Rs. 40,500/- before the I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirapalli,

in O.S. No. 235 of 2004 is a mala fide one and hence, on both the grounds, the petitioner is liable to be evicted.

As far as the ground of wilful default is concerned, necessary and adequate evidence are available on record. Even it is admitted that after

January, 2003, the petitioner did not pay the rent to the respondent, however it was on the ground that there was a dispute regarding title among

her family members. If it was so, the statutory remedy open to him is to deposit the rent before the Rent Control Authority, after filing necessary

application u/s 8(5) of the Rent Control Act. But, he has not done so. Further, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 254 of 2003 for permanent injunction

against Bethulakshmi restraining her from evicting him from the demised premises without due process of law and he deposited a sum of Rs.

40,500/- before the said Court in the said suit and afterwards, concededly, there had been no deposit. Even after filing of the civil revision petition

before this Court, there was no payment of rent. Payment of or deposit of lump sum rental arrears for many years as well as the non-payment on

subsequent occasions after institution of eviction proceedings are indicative of classical wilful default. A fervent attempt is made on the part of the

petitioner that even though it is stated that there was some wilful default, the landlady is bound to adjust the rental arrears with the advance amount

Rs. 5,000/- with her. Even if it is considered that the rental arrears could be adjusted in the advance amount, it could be only for nine months and

not more than that. Thus, it is the distinctive instance of wilful default.

Insofar as the contention of both parties with regard to requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction is concerned, the law of the

land requires the landlord to satisfy the following elements:

For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account: (1) bona fide intention of the

landlady far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building (3) the financial position of the landlady to

demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act.

With regard to the first requirement, namely, bona fide intention of the landlady, it has to be discerned from the circumstances of the case. If the

intention of the landlady is for evicting the tenant with mala fide intention, it cannot be entertained by the Court. While the landlady is able to

establish that she has got necessary finance for demolition and reconstruction, considering the age and condition of the buildings, then the

requirement could be termed to be bona fide.

As regards age and condition of the building are concerned, it is in the pleading that the building is aged over 60 years, which remains

undisputed. In support of his version, the respondent has produced Ex.A.4 which is a registered Relinquishment Deed, dated 27.06.2001,

executed by one Bethulakshmi, sister of this respondent in favour of one Pakiyalakshmi, who are admittedly family members of this respondent,

which shows that the right to the demised premises was derived from a registered Will deed 23.10.1951 registered as Document No. 68/1951,

which contains other properties also.

The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that inasmuch as it is candidly evident from Ex.A.4 that the building was in existence

even prior to 1951, then there could be a safe conclusion that the building is more than 60 years old.

I have found considerable force in his contention.

As far as the condition of the building is concerned, it is for the landlady to decide the same and her intention for demolition and reconstruction

has to be ascertained. To infer her intention, the oral evidence on record shall be explored by the Court.

In R. Mohammed Hanif Vs. Abdul Wahab and Others, it is held that the condition of the building is to be decided based on the evidence

adduced by the landlady but such evidence is lacking in that case. As for this case, necessary oral testimony is available on record to find out the

condition of the building. The respondent has produced Ex.A.8 which is an approved plan for the construction of a new building in the place of the

existing building. Production of such document is an important element to infer intention in the mind of the landlady and it is a preparation on her

part that she is having bona fide intention for demolition and reconstruction.

In view of the above said observations, it has to be necessarily held that the respondent has complied with the legal requirements as enunciated

by the Larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court.

Adverting to the financial position of the landlady, much earlier, that is to say, even prior to filing of eviction application, the respondent has

mentioned about possession of sufficient funds with her. For the purpose evicting the tenant, she issued a legal notice on 18.01.2003 to the

petitioner / tenant requiring him to vacate the premises, in which she has categorically mentioned that she was possessed with sufficient funds for

reconstruction. Identical allegation is also found in the petition for eviction.

The learned Counsel for the respondent also draws attention of this Court to the deposition of the respondent examined as P.W.1, in which

she has stated that she has got necessary financial background.(sic). Significant it is to note that it was not denied in the cross-examination. Hence,

it has to be construed that this part of the evidence stands proved. The above said materials available in this proceedings are sufficient to hold that

the respondent has got sufficient means and possessed funds for demolition and reconstruction.

In view of the discussions and observations, obtained on a careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the

considered view that the requirement of the respondent for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and she has satisfied the statutory

requirements as laid down by law.

In the light of the what are stated above, there is no necessity to upset the upshot of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and its order

deserves to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. This civil revision petition does not merit consideration.

In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs. Time for vacating and handing over

possession of the demised premises in favour of the respondent is two months.