Madras High Court
Sirajudeen vs S.Dhilsath Begum on 12 January, 2022
C.R.P.(MD) No.1021 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P(MD)No.1021 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD) No.5642 of 2019
Sirajudeen ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.S.Dhilsath Begum
2.S.Abdul Kadhar ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to set aside the Fair and
Decretal Order dated 11.04.2019 in R.C.A.No.08of 2017 on the file of
the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal District Munsif, Dindigul,
confirming the Fair and Decretal Order of the Rent Controller/Principal
District Munsif, Dindigul in H.R.C.O.P.No.9 of 2013 dated 14.03.2017
and allow this revision.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Hariharan
For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
_________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1021 of 2019
ORDER
The tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court. The above
revision has been filed challenging the concurrent orders of eviction
suffered by the revision petitioner.
2.The facts in brief are as follows:-
(i) The respondents / landlords had filed H.R.C.O.P.No.9 of 2013
on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul for eviction of the
revision petitioner on the ground of demolition and re-construction. The
demised premises is 130 sq ft shop premises situated in a shop complex
bearing Door No.139, comprised in T.S.No.156, Big Bazar Street,
Dindigul. The respondents would submit that the suit schedule property
belongs to them and it was originally the property of V.S.S.Bathimunsha
Begum. The respondents are residing at Salem. The rents were being
collected by their power agent V.S.Malik. The first respondent is
permanently residing at Salem and the second respondent is working in
the TANGEDCO as a Chief Engineer, from which post he had retired on
31.05.2012. The demised property was allotted to the share of the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1021 of 2019
V.S.S.Bathimunsha Begum, who had executed the gift settlement deed.
By reason of which, the respondents became entitled to the suit schedule
property. The building thereon has been constructed as early as in the
year 1930. The walls are all lime and mortar and the building is over 80
years old. The revision petitioner's father was originally a lessee in
respect of their property and thereafter, the revision petitioner had
occupied the same.
(ii)The second petitioner has retired from service and therefore, he
is desirous of demolishing the suit property and putting up a storied
building. By reason of this, the rents would increase and the income of
the respondents would simultaneously also go on. The petitioner had
been sending the rent by money order till May 2012. The respondents
had requested the revision petitioner to vacate the premises vide their
notice dated 16.07.2012 within period of 30 days and hand over the
possession to the respondents. In the notice, it is also stated that the
demand of rental advance of a sum of Rs.10,000/-, was in the hands of
the respondents/landlords.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1021 of 2019
(iii) A reply was sent on 23.07.2012 by the revision petitioner/
respondent stating that the building is in a good condition and there is no
necessity to put up the new construction . He had also informed that he
was ready to pay additional advance and increased rent. The petition
premises was not in a dilapidated condition requiring its demolition. The
revision petitioner pleaded that the petition lacks bona fides.
(iv) After hearing the contention of both parties, the Rent
Controller was pleased to order eviction. The revision petitioner herein
had filed R.C.A.No.8 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority/Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. TheAppellate
Authority also dismissed the said application. Challenging the
concurrent judgment and decree, the revision petitioner is before this
Court.
3.Mr.A.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner would make the following submissions:-
The order of the Court below is bad, since no evidence has been
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1021 of 2019
given with reference to the stability of the building, particularly, when
the respondents seeks eviction on the ground of demolition and
reconstruction, the demised premises is a small shop which is part of a
row of seven shops and he would argue that the demolition of a small
shop would cause damage to the other adjacent buildings, all of which,
are wall to wall constructions. He would further submit that the estimate
with reference to the property, has been given without actually visiting
the same. The Engineer had not been examined on the side of the
respondents/landlords. The petitioner had also taken a stand that the
property tax continues in the name of the predecessor in title of the
respondents herein.
4.Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the landlords, would submit that the revision petitioner had denied the
title of the respondents and therefore, he is liable to be evicted on the
ground of denial of title as well. He has also argued that the respondents
would take the utmost care while demolishing their portion and that
apart, it is not for the tenant to canvas the feasibility of the demolition
and it is only for the neighbouring owners to do so.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1021 of 2019
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the records.
6.The petitioner/tenant had even in his counter questioned the right
of respondents to the demised property. In fact, he has denied the title
which is evident from a reading of ground Nos.l1 to 15 of the rent
control appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. The main contention
of the tenant is that it is not possible for a single shop standing admist
adjoining shops, to be demolished without damage to the other properties
and therefore, the request for eviction on the ground of demolition and
reconstruction lacks bona fides. With the advancement in technology, it
is possible to demolish a small portion of the building and leave the other
portions intact. Further, it is not for the tenant to dictate these terms. It
is for the adjacent owners to complain about the same. If the argument is
accepted, then none of the old row houses having wall to wall
construction, can be demolished without all the owners coming together.
This argument of the tenant is therefore totally incorrect. Admittedly, the
building is over 80 years old and is situated in a busy market area. The
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1021 of 2019
landlords have proved that they have necessary wherewithal to demolish
and put up construction. Therefore, both the Authorities below have
rightly concluded that the landlords had proved their case for seeking
eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. This Court,
sitting in Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, does not propose to re-appreciate the evidence, particularly,
when the petitioner/tenant had not made out the case to show that the
orders suffers from an infirmity or the same is perverse.
7.In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.01.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
cp
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1021 of 2019
P.T.ASHA, J.
cp
To:-
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority/
Principal District Munsif,
Dindigul.
2.The Rent Controller/
Principal District Munsif,
Dindigul.
C.R.P(MD)No.1021 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD) No.5642 of 2019
12.01.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
