Skip to content


K.P. Lonappan and Sons Vs. S. Mohamed Iqbal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 447 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1981Mad238
ActsTamil Nadu Buildings (lease and rent Control) Act, 1960 - Sections 12(1)
AppellantK.P. Lonappan and Sons
RespondentS. Mohamed Iqbal
Advocates:Habibullah Badsha, Adv.
Cases Referred and Co. v. Bansilal
Excerpt:
- - that the walls of the building are made up of brick and lime and that the first floor is roofed with tiles, pw 2 who is a building contractor has stated that the building is in a bad condition with cracks an the floor and on the walls. we am clearly that the, existing condition of the building far from being totally irrelevant is a vital......that the wooden fences are partially eaten away and have hallow in certain places and that on building requires demolition and reconstruction. the learned appellate authority has also noticed from the evidence of p. ws. i and 2 that the very next building was recently pulled down and a multistoried building has been . constructed in that place that there was a big fire accident in the adjacent building and that this present building got damaged partially due to the said fire accident. taking into these aspects of the case . the learned appellate authority has held that it is necessary to pull down the building and reconstruct the same and that the landlord has proved that the building is question is old enough and it requires demolition and reconstruction.3 mr. habibullah badsha.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The tenant is the petitioner herein, The petition for eviction was filed an the -ground that the landlord requires the building for demolition and reconstruction since it is a very old one and its first floor has on1y a Wed roof. It was averred in the Petition that the building is situate in an important commercial center and on the surroundings new buildings have been constructed. Both the Courts below have gone into the bona fides of the requirement of the Landlord and allowed the Petition, Aggrieved by the orders of the courts below~ the tenant has preferred the above civil revision petition

2. Mr. Habibullah Badsha. learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. submitted that the courts below have not properly considered the bona fides of the landlord in requiring the building for demolition and reconstruction. that the Petition itself lacks Particulars regarding the reason for demolition and reconstruction and that in any event the Petition has to be dismissed since the landlord bas not gone into the witness box to substantiate his bona fides in claiming the building for demolition and reconstruction. The Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the age of the building. the resources of the landlord to put up a new construction and the preparation made by the landlord in that remand. As regards the age and condition oft the building the landlord has 1ft in two witnesses to speak about the some. They are P. Ws. I and I P. W. I is no one other than the brother of the landlord, while P. W. 2 is a building contractor.

PW I has stated that the building is at least i9o years old, that them 2' cracks in the building that the building is vibrating due to the heavy traffic in that area. that the walls of the building are made up of brick and lime and that the first floor is roofed with tiles, PW 2 who is a building contractor has stated that the building is in a bad condition with cracks an the floor and on the walls. that the wooden fences are partially eaten away and have hallow in certain places and that On building requires demolition and reconstruction. The learned Appellate authority has also noticed from the evidence of P. Ws. I and 2 that the very next building was recently pulled down and a multistoried building has been . constructed in that place that there was a big fire accident in the adjacent building and that this present building got damaged partially due to the said fire accident. Taking into these aspects of the case . the learned Appellate Authority has held that it is necessary to pull down the building and reconstruct the same and that the landlord has proved that the building is question is old enough and it requires demolition and reconstruction.

3 Mr. Habibullah Badsha brines to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Metal ware and Co. v. Bansilal, : [1979]3SCR1107 . In that case arising out of a petition for eviction On the ground at demolition and reconstruction. the Supreme Court observed that apart from the factor of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to undertake the Project, the must have regard to the existing condition of the building its age and situation and the possibility or otherwise of its being put to more profitable use after reconstruction The Supreme Court has observed as follows- (at P. 1562).

'All these factors being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Controller on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 14 (1) (b). - - -It is therefore clear to us that the age and condition of the building would certainly be a relevant factor which will 'have to be taken into account while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act and the same cannot be ignored In paragraph 11 of its judgment, the Supreme Court has further observed as follows:-

'Having regardto the above discussion on the construction of Section 14 (1) (b). of the Act particular in the light of its scheme. we am clearly that the, existing condition of the building far from being totally irrelevant is a vital. Factor which will have to be considered while prouncing upon the bonafide requirement of the landlord under that provision which has to be done by having regard to all the circumstances and since intheinstant case all the courts have totally ignored this vital factor wefeel that their conclusionon the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord deserves to be met aside.'

4. I do not think that the facts of that case will apply to the present case. In this case. them is a clear finding by the courts below that the buildings is an old one and from the evidence it is clear that it had cracks on the floor and on the walls and the wooden frames are Partially eaten away and have become hallow in certain places. The Courts below have also assessed the age of the building as 50 to 55 years. The fact that this building got Partially damaged due to the fire accident in the adjacent building was also taken Into consideration by the courts below On these facts there is a definite finding that the building is An old one and it requires demolition and reconstruction. I am therefore of the opinion that the authorities below have wailed their mind regarding the existing condition of the building and have correctly come to the conclusion that the building requires demolition and reconstruction. As regards the resources of the landlord to construct the building and the preparation he has made for the construction. I find that the courts below have cogently discussed the evidence on record and have come to the conclusion that the landlord has proved all these factors. The eviction Petition in this case was filed as early as in 1975.and the Petitioner herein has successfully prevented the landlord from taking possession of the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction even as late as in 1981. do not find any illegality. impropriety or irregularly in the orders passed by the courts. below , and as such. the civil revision petition is dismissed.

5. Mr. Habibullah Badsha. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is having its business at the Premises in question for nearly twenty years. that it is situated in a busy locality at Broadway and that if the petitioner is thrown out of the building, immense loss and hardship would be caused to the Petitioner. He submits that some time may be given to the petitioner for vacating the premises. The request seems to be a genuine one on the facts and circumstances of this case. The Petitioner is therefore given ten weeks time from today to hand over vacant possession of the preises to the respondent herein,

6. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //