ORDER
V. Kanagaraj, J.
1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and final orders dated 23.1.1996 made in R.C.A.No. 118 of 1992 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 22.9.1992 made in R.C.O.P.No. 4 of 1989 by the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Thirumangalam.
2. To trace the history of the case, it is the landlord, who has filed the original petition before the Rent Controller for the eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner herein, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for demolition and reconstruction of the rental premises, pleading thereby that the monthly rent of the premises according to the English calendar month is Rs. 35 that the landlord having already filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No. 22 of 1981 for eviction of the tenant, the said petition had been withdrawn on 30.11.1981, since the tenant came forward with the assurance to vacate the premises and handover possession with the landlord; that the building is 60 years old having constructed with bricks, mud and plastered with cement and the same is in a dilapidated condition; that having agreed to vacate, the tenant had initiated proceedings in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1989 and deposited the rent as though the petitioner had refused to receive the same; that the landlord has made all arrangements to reconstruct the building, demolishing the present structure and would ultimately pray for eviction of the tenant for the said purpose.
3. On the contrary, the petitioner/tenant in his counter would deny the allegations generally excepting to confirm the tenancy and the quantum of the monthly rent and would also deny that he gave any assurance to vacate the premises, as a result of which R.C.O.P.No. 22 of 1981 had been withdrawn by the landlord, that it is false to allege that the premises is 60 years old; that the premises is stable and in a good condition and there is absolutely no necessity to demolish and reconstruct the same; that the permission said to have been obtained from the panchayat for the new construction has been done for the purpose of the above proceeding and the same is not genuine; that since the landlord refused to receive the rent, he sent the rent amount by money order till October, 1988 and since he refused even to receive the money order R.C.O.P.No. 22 of 1981 was instituted for the purpose of depositing the amount. Having become aggrieved against such steps taken on his part, the landlord has ultimately come forward to file the R.C.O.P. for eviction on false grounds. Since there is absolutely no necessity or warranting situation to demolish the premises and reconstruct the same, he would ultimately pray to dismiss the petition with costs.
4. Based on the above pleadings by parties, framing only one issue viz., whether the respondent/tenant is liable to be vacated from the petition premises, the enquiry had been held in which the petitioner/landlord besides examining himself as P.W.1, would also mark 12 documents as Exs.A-1 to A-12; Ex.A-1, dated 20.2.1989 being the plan and permission obtained from the panchayat for reconstructing the building; Ex.A-2 being the estimate of the new building; Ex.A-3 dated 19.2.1991 being the renewal of Ex.A-1; Ex.A-4 to Ex.A-7 being the money order coupons sent by the tenant; Ex.A-8 dated 16.12.1991 being the sale deed executed in favour of the tenant for Rs. 26,000; Ex.A-9 dated 5.9.1992 being the pay slip of the landlord; Ex.A-10 being the fixed deposit account lying in the name of the landlord for the year 1990-91; Ex.A-11 dated 3.7.1980 being the sale deed executed in favour of the landlord; and Ex.A-12 dated 18.2.1992 is the second renewal of Ex.A-1.
5. On the contrary, on the part of the tenant, he would only examine himself as R.W.1 but would not mark any document in support of his case. Two court documents would be marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2 by the court of enquiry, both the documents dated 28.6.1989 being the report of the Commissioner and the sketch drawn by the Commissioner respectively.
6. With the above evidence placed on record and appreciating the same in his own way, the Rent Controller would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to allow the petition ordering eviction of the tenant and an Appeal has been preferred by the tenant before the appellate authority and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in R.C.A.No. 118 of 1992, that too having come to be dismissed, confirming the fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller, now it is the tenant, who has come forward to file the above civil revision petition on certain grounds such as those offered in the memorandum of grounds of revision.
7. When the above matter was taken up for hearing, only the learned Counsel for the petitioner was present and in spite of many calling, neither the respondent, nor his counsel on his behalf appeared to argue the case, nor even any representation offered on their behalf for being absent. In such circumstances, this Court is left with no option, but to carry on with the hearing of the case and upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials available, the matter is being disposed of as under.
8. During arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the original petition was filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and a concurrent finding had been given both by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, ordering eviction of the revision petitioner from the premises; that on an earlier occasion, the same landlord has filed R.C.O.P.No. 22 of 1981 on the ground of owner’s occupation, but has withdrawn the same as he was aware that he would not succeed. Hence, subsequently he has come forward to file R.C.O.P. on ground of demolition and reconstruction and this vital aspect has not been considered by the courts below; that the courts below failed to consider the statement in Exs.A-4 to A-7, (money order coupons) related to the minor repairs to be carried out and the same cannot be taken as an admission of the dilapidated condition of the demised premises and such an approach is wholly erroneous; that the Advocate Commissioner has only stated that the rafters were old and in some places the plastering had fallen down. Since these would require only replacement, the courts below should not have concluded that the premises is in a dilapidated condition and it requires immediate demolition. On the contrary, it requires only patch up work and platering and hence, the requirement of the landlord would only fall under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, and not under Section 14(1)(b).
9. The learned Counsel would also contend that the lower court has failed to note the proposition of the Apex Court that the sine qua non for invoking Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is an imminent danger of collapse of the premises, whereas on facts in the present case, the premises requires repairs and not demolition; that the lower court has failed to note that the first petition was not for demolition and reconstruction, but for owner’s occupation; that it is not the age of the premises, but the condition of the same is the governing factor for ordering eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act; that there is no acceptable and strong evidence placed before the court by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction and merely based on the oral evidence, the courts below have decided to allow the petition of the landlord; that Exs.A-9 and A-10 are not the answers in proof of the capacity to reconstruct the premises after demolition; that Exs.A-1 to A-3 have been obtained for the purpose of the case. With these averments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would pray to set aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller and appellate authority.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that, the premises is used for nonresidential purposes, wherein the petitioner is running a photo studio; that the petition is for demolition and reconstruction and the defence plea is that it does not at all require demolition and reconstruction; that the landlord purchased the property in the year 1980 that immediately after purchase; he filed R.C.O.P.No. 22 of 1981 for eviction on ground of owner’s occupation; that before trial, knowing the fate of the petition, he withdrew the same and has subsequently come forward to file this petition; that since the landlord refused to receive the rent, the tenant was constrained to file R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1989 and deposited the rent in court; that immediately after such an action by the tenant, the landlord has instituted the above rent control proceedings for eviction on ground of demolition and reconstruction of the premises.
11. Further the learned Counsel would contend that the premises is a tiled one and segregated into two portions by the dividing wall; that the northern portion is in the occupation of the landlord and the southern portion is in the occupation of the tenant; that based on the Commissioner’s report, the lower court came to the conclusion that the premises requires demolition; that even while the roofing is in a bad condition, the landlord who is occupying the other portion of the same premises, says that he is not going to vacate that portion, which he is still in occupation, as it comes to be known from the cross-examination of P.W.1. Citing the relevant portions from the evidence of P.W.1 and that of the Commissioner’s report, ultimately the learned Counsel would pray for allowing the above revision petition, setting aside the orders of the courts below.
12. Even though on the part of the counsel for the respondent, no argument was advanced on account of absence, on perusal of the records, the case of the respondent as put up comes to be known that the premises consists of two portions, the northern portion which is occupied by the landlord for his residential purpose and the southern portion which is occupied by the tenant; that the premises is almost 80 years old and is in a dilapidated condition and the same requires demolition that the landlord is ready and prepared to reconstruct the premises; to show his bona fides, he has filed documents Ex.A-1, the approved Plan, Ex.A-2 the estimate, Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-12, the renewals of Ex.A-1 plan approval. Regarding the claims of the rival parties the courts below have also taken into account the court Exs.C-1 and C-2, the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner on his inspection to the petition premises, wherein he has pointed out certain minor defects that have occurred in the wall and in the roof of the tiled premises, which the petitioner would attribute that they can be plastered and altered very easily, and these are all only minor repairs that are to be carried out and the same cannot require demolition of the entire structure, as it is claimed on the part of the respondent.
13. Regarding the stability of the building, the Commissioner’s report is not of any use, since it does not point out any defects that have occurred to the basic structure of the premises, but only some minor repairs to be carried out, based on which the courts below have very easily arrived at the conclusion that the premises requires demolition. But, on the contrary, the tenant would say that the building is stable and nothing has gone wrong with the basic structure of the premises. That the courts have so far held that the age of the premises is not the criteria in assessing the stability but so many other factors have to be considered. None of those norms suggested by the upper forum of law have been brought out in the report of the Commissioner, so as to prove the instability of the premises. Hence, it is hereby decided that the lower courts without appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case in the context of the propositions of law propounded by the appellate forums, but on certain petty considerations, which are not the norms that are to be considered for estimating the stability of the premises, have held that the petition premises requires only demolition.
14. Obtaining the approval from the Municipality or from the panchayat or getting it renewed as has been done in Exs.A-1, A-3 and A-12 and also getting a sketch ready with approval for the intended construction of the premises may not be of much help for the landlord, since any unreasonable landlord wanting to evict the tenant without reasonable cause can very easily get equipped with these documents. Hence, the actual cause for demolition and reconstruction has to be proved with sufficient and overwhelming evidence by the landlord, especially when he wants to evict the tenant, who has set up his business or trade or profession in the premises in which he is in occupation. The hardship that is to be undergone by the tenant is not in a small measure and the authorities below do not seem to have focused their mind in this regard.
15. Moreover, from the evidence of P.W.1 landlord, it comes to be known that in spite of himself occupying the northern portion of the premises, he wants to demolish the southern portion, which is in the occupation of the tenant and the subject matter herein and he would categorically declare that he would not either vacate or demolish the portion occupied by him, thereby showing that his intention is not for demolishing and reconstructing the premises, but only to vacate the tenant at any cost. Moreover, the filing of R.C.O.P.No. 22 of 1981 in a short time after the purchase of the premises by him in the year 1980, wanting the tenant to be evicted on different ground of his personal use and occupation and withdrawing the same, and again coming forward to file this petition with a different plea of requiring the premises for demolition and reconstruction, does not appear to be genuine from the point of view of approach of the landlord.
16. Since one of the objectives of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is to control residential and nonresidential buildings and the control of rent of such buildings and the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom and to protect his genuine interest, the courts have held that unless genuine and strong reasons are proved in evidence, ordinarily the tenant cannot be evicted causing much hardships arid inconvenience for the tenant, and hence, this Court does not find any valid or tangible reason adduced on the part of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority for allowing the petition and ordering eviction of the tenant, so as to be approved by this Court also. In my opinion, the courts below have committed patent errors and perversity in approach, so as to arrive at the erroneous conclusion to order eviction of the tenant on ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, as a result of which the interference of this Court made into the said orders has become inevitable and both the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority have to be necessarily set aside. Unless the bona fides of the landlord in demolishing and reconstructing the building is overwhelmingly proved on evidence in consideration of the unnecessary hardships that are necessarily to be undergone by the tenant, a legal or statutory tenant cannot be ordered to be evicted from the premises in his tenancy occupation. Hence, there is absolutely no just or reasonable cause or any legal necessity or compelling circumstance exist in the orders passed both by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority in this case.
17. In result, the above civil revision petition succeeds and the same is allowed, setting aside the fair and decretal order dated 23.1.1996 made in R.C.A.No. l 18 of 1992, by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 22.9.1992 made in R.C.O.P.No. 4 of 1989 by the Rent Controller and District Munsif, Thirumangalam.
18. Consequently, the connected C.M.P is dismissed. No costs.