Skip to content


Appavu Gramani and anr. Vs. N. Jayalakshmi Ammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1971)2MLJ296
AppellantAppavu Gramani and anr.
RespondentN. Jayalakshmi Ammal
Cases ReferredChandrasekhara Chetti v. Kakumari Adikesavalu Charities
Excerpt:
- - the tenancy was duly determined by notice in writing and as the tenants failed to comply with the demand the present application was filed. in the case of old and dilapidated buildings which the landlord seeks to demolish for the purpose of reconstruction, the court does not generally require proof of other circumstances, but if the condition of the building is good, the court would require proof of circumstances such as the means of the landlord, sanction from the corporation authorities, etc......the rent controller overruled all the objections and ordered the petition as prayed for. the tenants filed h. r.a. no. 452 of 1969 in the court of small causes, madras. the appellate authority confirmed the order of the rent controller and dismissed the appeal. the tenants have filed the above revision petition and the same contentions are repeated here.2. in the instant case, the courts below have found that the claim of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and is not designed with a view to evict the tenants. in an application under section 14 (1) (b) it is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the building which is sought to be demolished is very old and dilapidated. it is enough to refer to the judgments of ramamurti, j., in mahboob basha v. manga.....
Judgment:
ORDER

V.V. Raghavan, J.

1. The tenants of the shop bearing No. 153-B/ 1, Tiruvottiyur High Road, are the petitioners. The landlord-respondent filed H.R. C. No. 1729 of 1967 under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The allegations in the petition are that the respondent is a purchaser of the premises in November, 1966, that the shop is more than 40 years old, built of country bricks and that the recent cyclone made the condition of the shop worse, that the building requires immediate demolition and erection of a new building in its place. In order to show his bona fides the landlord has undertaken to erect a new building within three months of demolition. The tenancy was duly determined by notice in writing and as the tenants failed to comply with the demand the present application was filed. The tenant opposed the application contending that the petition is not bona fide that the shop is not in a dilapidated state, that the sanction from the Corporation has not been obtained, and that the landlord has no finance to put up the construction. The Rent Controller overruled all the objections and ordered the petition as prayed for. The tenants filed H. R.A. No. 452 of 1969 in the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The tenants have filed the above revision petition and the same contentions are repeated here.

2. In the instant case, the Courts below have found that the claim of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and is not designed with a view to evict the tenants. In an application under Section 14 (1) (b) it is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the building which is sought to be demolished is very old and dilapidated. It is enough to refer to the judgments of Ramamurti, J., in Mahboob Basha v. Manga Devi I.L.R. (1965) Mad. 531 : (1965) 2 M.L.J. 209, and that of Venkatadari, J., in Chandrasekhara Chetti v. Kakumari Adikesavalu Charities : AIR1966Mad14 , dealing with this question. In the case of old and dilapidated buildings which the landlord seeks to demolish for the purpose of reconstruction, the Court does not generally require proof of other circumstances, but if the condition of the building is good, the Court would require proof of circumstances such as the means of the landlord, sanction from the Corporation authorities, etc. On the finding of the Courts below that the buildings are old and that the landlord's claim is bona fide no further proof such as obtaining the sanction for reconstruction or establishment of means of the landlord to construct are necessary. There are no merits in the revision petition. The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


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