Madras High Court
C.Saaji vs V.K.Krishnamoorthy on 14 August, 2023
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2778 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2778 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.17156 of 2023
1.C.Saaji
2.C.Dilip Kumar .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.V.K.Krishnamoorthy
2.Priya Rao .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the judgment and
decree dated 13.04.2023 in R.C.A.No.152 of 2019 passed by the VII
Court of Small Causes (lower Appellate Court), Chennai, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 24.09.2018 in R.C.O.P.No.331 of 2016 on the
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2778 of 2023
file of the XI Court of Small Causes (Trial Court) at Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr. R.Pravesh
for Mr.M.P.Muthukumaran
ORDER
The petitioners are the tenants, who have failed concurrently
before the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court in
R.C.O.P.No.331 of 2016 and R.C.A.No.152 of 2019 respectively.
2. The plea of the petitioners/tenants is as follows:
(i) The demolition plan obtained by the 1st respondent/landlord has
expired.
(ii) The landlord had put the demolition plan into execution by
demolishing the upper floor.
(iii) Considering the age of the building, demolition of the upper
floor would affect the building in the ground floor.
(iv) There is no bonafide on the part of the landlord in filing the
RCOP.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2778 of 2023
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. I went
through the orders of the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court.
4. In so far as age of the building is concerned, there is no dispute.
There is also no dispute that the landlord had in fact applied and obtained
a demolition plan. The demolition plan had expired, because the RCOP
had been pending from the year 2016 onwards. It is settled position of
law that a landlord need not produce the demolition plan for the purpose
of obtaining eviction. In fact, even if no demolition plan had been
obtained, as held by the Supreme Court, it can be produced at the time of
execution. Fortunately, for the 1st respondent/landlord in the present case,
even during the pendency of the RCOP, he had obtained a demolition
plan and put the same into execution.
5. That leaves out two other tests namely, the means of the landlord
for the purpose of putting up the construction. The means of the landlord
has been proved before the Rent Controller by producing Exs.P9 to P14,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2778 of 2023
which are Fixed Deposit receipts, Income Tax returns as well as the Pass
book of the landlord. One other factor is the bonafide of the landlord,
which has to be tested. In so far as the bonafide is concerned, the
landlord, who has the means and when the building is admittedly aged
about 56 years, he has proved his bonafides by not only examining
himself, but also one K.Natarajan as P.W.2.
6. The trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have
concurrently found that the bonafides have been proved and therefore,
sitting in revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, I cannot revise the same. This is as per the
judgment of the Constitutional Bench in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the landlord
has not extended the demolition plan, which had been obtained by him.
Obtaining of demolition plan itself is a very laborious as well as an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2778 of 2023
expensive endeavour. In order to satisfy the tenants, the landlord need
not keep on paying extension amounts for the purpose of keeping the
demolition plan alive.
8. As I have already pointed out, the very fact that the landlord has
the means and has obtained demolition plan shows that he has bonafides
not only in demolishing the building, but also putting up a new
superstructure.
9. I do not find any merits in the revision and therefore, I am
dismissing the revision.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
Mr.C.Dilip Kumar, the 2nd revision petitioner is visually challenged and
therefore, evicting him from the premises would cause him hardship.
11. Taking into consideration this plea, I am inclined to grant nine
months time from today till 30.04.2024 for the petitioners to vacate and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2778 of 2023
handover the peaceful possession of the property to the landlord. This
shall be on the ground that the petitioners shall file an affidavit of
undertaking that they shall not put any third party into possession of the
property nor will be in default in payment of rents. For filing of an
undertaking affidavit, time is granted till 31.08.2023. It is made clear that
in case, affidavit of undertaking is not filed on or before 31.08.2023, the
time granted shall automatically vacated and the 1st respondent/landlord
is free to execute the decree.
12. With the above directions with respect to handing over the
possession, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2778 of 2023
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Kj
To
1. VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2778 of 2023
and C.M.P.No.17156 of 2023
14.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
