Madras High Court
T.Sathyamoorthy vs Subramaniam on 11 January, 2022
C.R.P.No.3055 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.No.3055 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.21578 of 2021
T.Sathyamoorthy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Subramaniam
2.S.Kamal
3.S.Sadasivam
4.B.Kavitha .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Control) Act, 1960, praying to set aside the fair and
final order passed in RCA.No.7 of 2017 on the file of Rent Control
Appellate Authority Cum Principal Subordinate Court, Erode dated
29.11.2019 confirming the fair and final order passed in RCOP.No.17 of
2015 on the file of Rent Controller Cum I Additional District Munsif Court,
Erode, dated 20.01.2017 and allow the Civil Revision Petition.
------------
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3055 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan
For Respondents : Mrs.Zeenath Begum
********
ORDER
Challenge in this Revision is to the order of eviction passed on the
ground of requirement for demolition and re-construction under 14(1)(b) of
the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
2. The landlords, four in number, sought for eviction of the tenant on
two grounds viz., willful default and demolition and re-construction. The
Rent Control Original Petition itself was presented through a power of
attorney. The power document was marked as Ex.P1. The landlords would
contend that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent for the
period from November 2014 to February 2015 and hence, the tenant is liable
to be evicted.
------------
Page No.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3055 of 2021
3. It was also contended that the building is very old and the landlords
require the same for demolition and re-construction. It was claimed that the
adjacent properties viz., Door Nos.60 to 68 also belong to the landlords and
out of the Door Nos.60 to 68, Door No.67 is residential house and the others
are shops and they have been leased out to various tenants and separate
applications are being made to evict the tenants. It is claimed that the
building is sufficiently old. Eviction proceedings were taken once in the year
1980 and the landlords could not succeed. The required undertaking to
commence the demolition within a period of one month and to completed the
same before the expiry of three months was also given. It is also averred that
the tenant had agreed to vacate possession by 01.03.2015 and he had failed
to do so.
4. The tenant resisted the claim of the landlord contending that there
was no default in payment of rent. It was also contended that he and his
predecessors in interest are in occupation of the building for more than 60
years and the rent was periodically enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. The power
agent Vasudevan offered to sell the property to the tenant at Rs.18,000/- per
------------
Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3055 of 2021
sq. ft. As the tenant was not willing to purchase the property for such a high
price, the said Vasudevan, the power agent, has come up with this
application to evict the tenant. It was also contended that the dismissal of
earlier proceedings launched in 1979 would be a bar to this present
proceeding.
5. Before the Rent Controller the power agent was examined as PW1
and Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked. Ex.P1 is the power of attorney. The
approved plan and the approval given for construction was marked as Ex.P7
and Ex.P8. The tenant examined himself as RW1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 viz.,
the copies of the orders passed in prior proceedings were marked.
6. The Rent Controller upon consideration of the evidence rejected the
claim of the landlords that the tenant has committed default in payment of
rent. However, the Rent Controller accepted the case of the landlords on the
ground of demolition and re-construction and ordered eviction. The fact that
the tenant himself was in occupation of the building for more than 60 years
was taken into account to come to the conclusion that the building is
------------
Page No.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3055 of 2021
sufficiently old. The production of the planning permission and the approved
plan was also taken into account to buttress the claim of the landlords.
7. Aggrieved by the order of eviction granted on the ground of
demolition and re-construction, the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA.No.7
of 2017. The Appellate Authority upon re-examination of the evidence on
record concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the
appeal. Hence, this Revision.
8. Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would contend that the power document itself is not very clear.
According to him, the document has been executed in favour of a group of
persons and it is not known as to whether the said group of persons have
authorized Mr.Vasudevan to file Rent Control Original Petition. He would
also contend that there is no bona fide in the need of the landlords for
demolition and re-construction. The dismissal of the earlier proceedings was
also projected as a ground to buttress the contention of the tenant.
9. I am unable to agree with the contention of the counsel on the
------------
Page No.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3055 of 2021
execution of the power of attorney. The document itself has been placed
before me. A reading of the document clearly shows that the document has
been executed in favour of one Vasudevan authorizing him to take steps for
eviction against the tenant and also take steps to construct new building after
demolition of the old building.
10. Of course, there is a reference to a group of persons in one clause
of the document. But, that by itself would not make the power of attorney as
executed in favour of the group of persons. If the document read as a whole
it is clear that it is one Mr.N.Vasudevan S/o Nallamuthu Gounder, who has
been appointed as the power agent. He has also been authorized to take
steps to evict the tenant by launching appropriate proceedings against them.
It is also seen that this plea that the power of attorney is in favour of group
of person was not raised before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate
Authority. Even in the grounds of Revision, there is no such ground raised.
Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the counsel that the power
is executed in favour of the group of persons.
------------
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3055 of 2021
11. On the merits of the case, admittedly the tenant is in occupation
for 60 years. It is admitted that the building is partly commercial and partly
residential. It is also situate in the busy commercial locality in Erode Town.
After the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Sing and others
Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal reported in 1996 (6) SCC 475, eviction of tenant
on the ground of demolition and re-construction can be allowed to enable the
landlord to augment income from the property.
12. That apart both the Authorities under the Act held that the need
of the landlord is bona fide. Sitting in a Revision under Section 25 of the
Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act, 1960, I do not think I can re-
appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion, even if such
conclusion is possible. The jurisdiction of Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Control) Act, 1960 though wider than Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be a substitute for an appeal.
------------
Page No.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3055 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
13. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the
Authorities under the Act. The Revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.01.2022
dsa
Index : No
Internet :Yes
Speaking order
To
1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority Cum
Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode.
2. The Rent Controller Cum
I Additional District Munsif, Erode.
C.R.P.No.3055 of 2021
------------
Page No.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
