ORDER
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.
1. The civil revision petition has been filed by the landlady against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority, Vellore, in R.C.A.No. 63 of 1990, reversing the order passed by the District Munsif/Rent Controller, Gudiyatham, in R.C.O.P.No. 26 of 1987.
2. The petitioner/landlady filed a petition for eviction against the respondent/tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent is a tenant under the petitioner/landlady on a monthly rent of Rs. 125, which was originally leased out to the father of the tenant who was doing hardware business. After his death the respondent/tenant is continuing as a tenant doing the same business of hardware. According to the landlady, the demised property is more than a century old and it is in a dilapidated condition and therefore, it requires immediate demolition. It is further stated by the landlady that income from the building is very negligible and since the building is 100 years old, the landlady decided to demolish the same and reconstruct a now building in order to augment more income. The landlady was already obtained necessary approval from the appropriate authorities for the purpose of reconstruction of the building. She has also obtained necessary planning permission for the said purpose. The landlady has also gave an undertaking to reconstruct the building after demolition within the stipulated period as provided under the Act.
3. The tenant resisted the petition. According to him, the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. He has also denied that the building is more than a century old and it is in a dilapidated condition. The landlady has no wherewithal to demolish and reconstruct the building. The tenant has also denied that the landlady has obtained necessary approval from the authorities concerned. The landlady has not furnished the necessary undertaking as contemplated under the Act and that the undertaking given by her is not in accordance with the rule of law and hence invalid. The petition has been filed only to serve oblique purpose of the landlady. The landlady has no money to do the alleged construction.
4. Before the Rent Controller, the landlady filed Ex.A-1 dated 15.10.1986, which is the plan submitted by her for construction. The tenant filed Exs.B-land B-2. The landlady examined herself as P.W.1 and one Kannan was examined as R.W.1 on the side of the tenant. The Rent Controller, on a consideration of the materials placed before him, both oral and documentary, specifically held that the building is in a dilapidated condition and that the requirement of the landlady to demolish the building and to reconstruct in order to augment more income is bone fide. He has also relied on the evidence placed before him in order to prove that the building is old and in a dilapidated condition and that it is more than a century old. The Rent Controller has further referred to the means to demolish and reconstruct a new building in the said site.
5. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant preferred R.C.A.No. 63 of 1990 before the Principal Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority, Vellore, who interfered with the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved against the same, the landlady has filed the above civil revision petition.
6. I have heard the arguments of Mr. N. Vanchinathan for the petitioner/landlady and Mr. L. Mohan for the respondent/tenant. I have gone through the entire pleadings and also the evidence both oral and documentary, besides the orders impugned in this revision. In my opinion, the order of the Appellate Authority reversing the well considered order of the Rent Controller, is contrary to law and the same has been passed on an erroneous appreciation of the evidence. On a careful reading of the pleading available and the evidence tendered, the Appellate Authority can only found that the landlady has fully satisfied the requirements of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority, in my view, has completely failed to note that the Rent Controller has fully analysed the evidence of the landlady wherein she has categorically deposed that apart from the fact that the building is in a dilapidated condition, she has also deposed that it will be advantageous and economically profitable to demolish the building.
7. My attention was drawn to the detailed finding rendered by the Rent Controller. As rightly pointed out by Mr. N. Vanchiathan, the Appellate Authority has completely failed to appreciate the finding of the Rent Controller wherein the Rent Controller has dealt with the nature and condition of the building as being in a diapiladated stage as required under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority has only dealt with the fact regarding the age of the building without adverting to the other discussions of the Rent Controller wherein the discusses elaborately regarding the condition of the building, Consequently, the Appellate Authority has come to an erroneous conclusion that the landlady has only established that she wanted to demolish the building for constructing a new one, ignoring the other viz., immediate demolition is required in view of the dilapidated nature of the building. The whole appreciation, reasoning and the conclusion of the Appellate Authority are based on his omission to appreciate the entire pleading and evidence, which will go to show that the landlady not only asked for building a new house but also to demolish it since it is in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, the erroneous assigned by the Appellate Authority, which are unsustainable in law, are liable to be set aside.
8. This apart, the landlady has satisfied the requirements and conditions as provided under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act as explained by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in P. Orr & sons (P) Ltd., v. Associated Publisher, Madras (1990)2 L.W. 547 observed in paragraphs 27 and 28 as follows:
These decisions in so far as they have disregarded the vital importance of the condition of the building as a necessary circumstance for the landlord to prove before the Controller could make an order under Section 14(1)(b) directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building for the purpose of demolition have not correctly stated the law on the point.
Various circumstances such as capacity of the landlord, the size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authority while considering an application for recovery. But the essential and overriding consideration which in general interests of the public and for the protection of the tenants from unreasonable eviction, the legislature has in mind is the condition of the building that demands timely demolition by reason of the extent of damage to its structure making it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs. While the condition of the building by itself may not necessarily establish the bona fide requirement under Clause (b), that condition is not only one of the various circumstances which may be taken into account by the controller, but it is the essential condition in the absence of which it would not be possible for the landlord to prove that he has a bona fide requirement, which is timely, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building. The Act does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of relevant circumstances, requires demolition. These matters are to be proved by evidence.
9. However, Mr. L. Mohan, learned Counsel for the tenant contended that the landlady has not averred in her petition that she has means to demolish the building and reconstruct the same within the time stipulated under the provisions of the Act. As already stated, much reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court cited P.Orr and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Associated Publisher, Madras (1990)2 L.W. 547. On the strength of the said decision, that condition is not only one of the various circumstances which may be taken into account by the authorities concerned but it is the essential condition in the absence of which it would not be possible for the landlord to prove that he has a bona fide requirement, which is timely, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building.
10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant is untenable. In fact, the landlady has stated in her evidence that she has means to meet the cost of construction and complete the same within the time stipulated. The Supreme Court, as already stated, has mentioned the various circumstances to be taken into account by the Rent Control authorities such as the capacity of the landlord, the size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors justifying the investment of capital on reconstruction. The Supreme Court has further stated that the essential and overriding consideration, which in general interests of the public and for the protection of the tenants from unreasonable eviction is the condition of the building. In my opinion, the bona fide requirement of the landlady has been established in this case. In the instant case, the building is more than a century old. It is the specific case of the landlady that the premises does not yield good return. Hence, she intends to demolish the existing structure and construct a new building for better utility and good return. It is not in dispute that the building in question is situated in the heart of Gudiyatham Town in a business locality. A cumulative reading of all the facts would make it clear that in a business locality in Gudiyatham Town viz., the demised premises which is more than a century old, should not be allowed stand as an archaeological monument.
11. In the instant case, the landlady has proved that she has the capacity to demolish and reconstruct. Though the same, is not specifically alleged in the petition the same has been proved through oral evidence, which, in my opinion, has been proved satisfactorily. The economic advantage will be more if the landlady is allowed to demolish and construct a new one. The modern construction of a larger building shall certainly yield better revenue and also appreciate in value. I may also consider the other factor viz., the public interest and the object of the Act as pointed out by the Apex Court. In public interest, old and out-moded building should be replaced with better and modern building, which would provide for better quality accommodation to the needs of the present day. The object of the Act is to protect the tenants from unreasonable eviction. That does not mean that a bona fide landlady cannot at all file a petition for demolition and reconstruction making it more economical. There are enough pleadings and evidence on record regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlady under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.
12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No. 63 of 1990 is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No. 26 of 1987 is restored. There will be no order as to costs.
13. Mr. L. Mohan, learned Counsel for the tenant seeks four months’ time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlady, for which the learned Counsel for the landlady has no objection. Hence, the respondent/tenant is given four months from to-day to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the petitioner/ landlady.