Skip to content


G.K. Jose and ors. Vs. Ramathal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1979)1MLJ372
AppellantG.K. Jose and ors.
RespondentRamathal
Excerpt:
- .....two grounds urged for the purpose of eviction are (1) wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction as regards the petitioner in c.r.p no. 136/79 an additional ground of eviction has been urged by the respondent-landlady. the rent controller by a common judgment in all the four petitions filed against the petitioners herein held that the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent had been established, except in respect of the petitioner in c.r.p. no. 138 of 1079. as regards the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction the rent controller held that the requirement is bona fide and, therefore, she is entitled to an order of eviction on.....
Judgment:

G. Ramanujam, J.

1. All these four revision petitions arise out of a common judgment rendered by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 dismissing the appeals filed by the four petitioners against the orders of eviction passed against at them by the Rent Controller. All the four petitioners herein are tenants in the various portions of the same building bearing different door numbers (Door Nos. 22/315, 313, 314 and 315). As regards all the petitioners except the petitioner in C.R.P. 136/ 79 the two grounds urged for the purpose of eviction are (1) wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction As regards the petitioner in C.R.P No. 136/79 an additional ground of eviction has been urged by the respondent-landlady. The Rent Controller by a common judgment in all the four petitions filed against the petitioners herein held that the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent had been established, except in respect of the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 138 of 1079. As regards the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction the Rent Controller held that the requirement is bona fide and, therefore, she is entitled to an order of eviction on that ground alone. In respect of the sob-letting alleged against the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 136 of 1979, the Rent Controller held that the subletting has not been proved. On the above findings rendered by the Rent Controller he ordered eviction as against all the four petitioners. On appeals filed by the petitioners, the Appellate Authority held that the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent had been established as against all the petitioners, except the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 138 of 1979. As regards the ground based an bona fide requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction, the finding of the Rent Controller was also upheld by the Appellate authority. As regards the allegation of subletting as against the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 136 of 1979, the Appellate Authority found on the materials that the subletting has been duly proved. In these revision petitions the petitioners challenge the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority an the above three grounds.

2. On the question of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent, there is no dispute that for certain months the rents have not been paid. But, such default, it is urged, cannot be take to the wilful. But the finding of the appellate authority is that the default committed by the petitioners-tenants is wilful in that even if the landlady has refused to receive the rent, they should have deposited the amount in a bank or before the Rent Controller which they have not done, and once they have not remitted the rent after knowing the consequences of non-payment, the default should be taken to be wilful. On the materials, I am not able to say that the decision of the appellate authority on this question is erroneous.

3. On the question of the landlady's bona fide requirement of the premises for demolition and re-construction, the learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that there are absolutely no bona fides in the request of the landlady's requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and re-construction. It is said that the respondent landlady is not in such a financial position as to demolish and reconstruct the building It is also urged the plan of the building which has been filed before the Court has been obtained after filing of the petition for eviction and that that shows that the ground of the requirement of the building for the purpose of demolition and re-construction could only be an afterthought. I do not see how the obtaining of a plan subsequent to the filing: of the eviction petition will show that the requirement of the premises by the landlady for the purpose of demolition and re-construction is no bona-fide. To find out the bona-fide of the requirement of the landlady, one has to see whether she has got sufficient funds to undertake the work of demolition and re-construction of the building. In this case the appellate Court finds that the buildings are very old and the landlady wants to demolish and reconstruct the same into a modern building with a view to get better return from the property. Exhibit A-10 is the approved plan and Exhibit A-11 is the building licence. Exhibit A-12 is the renewal licence and Exhibity A-13 is the estimate for the proposed construction. On these materials the appellate authority finds that these documents show the landlady's bona-fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The respondent has also shown that she has got ample means to undertake the demolition and re-construction. As a matter of fact, the respondent's husband as P.W. 1, has shown that there is a bank deposit of Rs. 50 500 in savings account which he intends utilising to demolish and re-construct the building. On the finding of tha appellate authority which is based on the materials on record it is not possible to say that the requirement of the respondent is not bona-fide at all. I have, therefore, to accept the findings of the authorities below that the landlady requires the premises bona-fide for demolition and reconstruction. As the above two grounds of eviction are found to have been established, it is not necessary to go into the other question as to whether the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 136 of 1979 is guilty of unauthorised sub-letting, as in any event, the respondent is entitled to succeed in getting an order of eviction on the two grounds. In this view, all the revisions petitions are dismissed. The petitioners will, however, have three months' time to vacate.


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