Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7656 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Shakeelulr Rahman
RESPONDENT:
Syed Mehdi Ispahani
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/11/2002
BENCH:
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & ARIJIT PASAYAT.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
A suit for eviction by the appellant-tenant filed by the respondent-
landlord on the ground available under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ’the
Act’) was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
However, the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction allowed the
prayer for eviction. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the tenant has filed this
appeal by special leave.
In a nutshell, the factual position about which there is not much
controversy, is as follows :-
The suit premises consist of a ground floor and first floor measuring
about 1ground and 277 sq. feet. Landlord-respondent, as set out in the
application R.C.O.P. No. 2424 of 1988 on the file of Court of Small Causes
at Madras claimed that the eviction was required for demolition and
reconstruction of the building bearing Door no.5, Clemens Road, Chennai.
It was specifically pleaded that the property is situated in a residential-cum-
commercial locality wherein multi-storied buildings have been erected and
in order to utilize the property and earn better income he has decided to
demolish the said building completely and desired to construct a multi-
storied in the property. The appellant-tenant disputed the stand of the
respondent-landlord and pleaded that the building is in a sound condition
and does not require demolition at all. The Rent Controller rejected the
respondent-landlord’s prayer, accepting appellant-tenant’s stand. Reliance
was placed on this Court’s decision in P. Orr and Sons (P) Ltd. vs.
Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited (1991(1) SCC 301), to hold that it
was mandatory to verify whether the building in question requires
immediate demolition and reconstruction. Though he accepted the
respondent-landlord’s case that the new building shall fetch more income
and he has sufficient means to put up the construction, but these facts were
held to be not much of consequence. Appellate Authority concurred with
the views of Rent Controller. On being approached for revision, learned
Single Judge held that notwithstanding absence of pleadings regarding age
and condition of the building, material on record clearly established that the
building was old and required demolition. Additionally it was held that the
importance of the area where the building is situated has undergone a sea
change and there was all around development. Reference was made to the
evidence of witnesses and documents on record which established that an
agreement (P-11) had been executed for demolition of the building in
question and two others owned by landlord’s mother and brother, and for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
putting up multi-storied structures. The total extent of the property for the
three buildings was 12 Grounds, while the building in question was on an
area of 1 Ground and 277 sq. ft. It was also observed that law does not
require that unless the landlord established beyond doubt that the building
was in such a bad and dilapidated condition that it would lead to immediate
crumbling down, or later, he would not be entitled to an order of eviction.
Reference was made to the evidence of RW 1(the tenant), and RW2 (the
engineer examined by tenant) to state about age and condition of the
building. With reference to latter’s evidence it was observed that since last
forty to fifty years, no construction was put up with Madras terrace. Further,
brick and lime mortar was used for construction and plastering was by lime
mortar. These material facts which were brought to notice of the Court by
the tenant clearly established that the building was at least 50 years old and
was not in good condition. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, it was held
that respondent-landlord had bona fide requirements for seeking tenant’s
eviction.
In support of the appeal learned counsel submitted that the High Court
has erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction when there were concurrent
findings on facts recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate
Authority that the building was not old and/or its condition was not such as
to warrant immediate demolition. With reference to this Court’s decision in
K.M. Abdul Razzak vs. Damodharan (2000 (5) SCC 369), it was submitted
that the High Court erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to act as an
appellate Court to re-appraise or re-assess the evidence afresh as an appellate
Court and come to different findings contrary to the factual findings
recorded by the courts below.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that
age and condition of the building are not the only criteria for bringing in
application of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. In a given case, where the
demolition was intended to put up a new structure for better financial
returns, it also constitutes a bona fide requirement by the landlord.
In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be necessary to
notice the legal position prevailing at the time the landlord filed the petition
under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Section 14(1)(b) reads as under:-
"14.(1).....the Controller, shall, if he is satisfied -
*
(b) that the building is bona fide required by the
landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing
it and such demolition is to be made for the
purpose of erecting a new building on the site of
the building sought to be demolished.
pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession
of the building to the landlord before a specified
date."
The said provision was interpreted by this Court in P. Orr and Sons
case (supra). It was observed that landlord could succeed in an application
under Section 14(1)(b) only when it is established that the building is in
dilapidated condition which require immediate demolition. This decision
was applied by the Rent Controller for rejecting landlord’s application for
eviction. View in the said case was diluted by a subsequent Constitution
Bench decision in Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (1996 (6)
SCC 475). Some of the relevant observations made in the said case read as
follows:
"10. Permission under Section 14(1)(b) cannot be
granted by the Rent Controller on mere asking of
the landlord, that he proposes to immediately
demolish the building in question to erect a new
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
building. At the same time it is difficult to accept
the stand of the appellants that the building must
be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human
habitation. For granting permission under Section
14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to
consider all relevant materials for recording a
finding whether the requirement of the landlord for
demolition of the building and erection of a new
building on the same site is bona fide or not. For
recording a finding that requirement for demolition
was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to take into
account: (1) bona fide intention of the landlord far
from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants;
(2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the
financial position of the landlord to demolish and
erect a new building according to the statutory
requirements of the Act. These are some of the
illustrative factors which have to be taken into
consideration before an order is passed under
Section 14(1)(b). No court can fix any limit in
respect of the age and condition of the building.
That factor has to be taken into consideration along
with other factors and then a conclusion one way
or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent
Controller.
11. Respondent also wanted to demolish the entire
building in order to construct a new shopping
complex for which necessary permission from the
municipal authorities had already been obtained. It
had also been claimed on behalf of the respondent
that she had sufficient financial resources for
construction of the new building. An undertaking
had also been given on behalf of the respondent
that the work of demolition of the building would
commence within one month and would be
completed before the expiry of three months from
the date the said respondent recovered possession
of the building."
(Underlined for emphasis)
As observed in para 11 (supra) where the landlord wanted to demolish
the building in order to construct a new shopping complex for which
necessary permission from the authorities had already been obtained and
sufficient financial resources were available for the construction the bona
fide requirement is established. In the case at hand both the Rent Controller
and the Appellate Authority held that the respondent-landlord wanted to
demolish the building in order to construct a new complex and had requisite
financial resources for undertaking the construction. High Court has referred
to Exts. P8 to P10 and the evidence of PW1 to hold that the requisite
financial soundness was to put up new multi-storied complex. In addition,
agreement vide P-11, to which reference has been made supra, was referred
to in this context.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
High Court interfered with the concurrent finding of the lower authorities in
regard to the age of the building which is illegal. No exception can be taken
to the contention, but it does not alter the result. As noted above, both Rent
Controller and the Appellate Authority proceeded on the basis as if age and
condition of the building are the sine qua non for application of Section
14(1)(b) of the Act, based on the view expressed in P. Orr and Sons case
(supra). But in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in
Vijay Singh’s case (supra), though age and condition of the building sought
to be demolished are relevant factors to test bona fides of the landlord, they
are not determinative of the issue. Though we do not approve the High
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
Court’s approach in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact, yet we
do not consider it necessary or just to interfere with the order under
challenge, as on the other concurrent findings of facts recorded by the lower
authorities, referred to above, a finding of bona fide requirement of the
landlord has been recorded by the High Court which is affirmed by us. The
finding is sufficient to sustain the order under challenge.
A faint attempt was made by learned counsel for the appellant that
there has been no provision for re-induction of the tenant after re-
construction. A rational approach would be to hold that age and condition of
the building are the only relevant factors, keeping in view the beneficial
context of the statute. This plea is without any substance in view what is
stated in Vijay Singh’s case (supra) and Prabhakaran Nair and Ors. vs. State
of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1987 (4) SCC 238). In the latter case, it was
observed as follows:
"It has to be borne in mind that it is not practicable
and would be anomalous to expect a landlord to take
back a tenant after a long lapse of time during which time
the tenant must necessarily have found some suitable
accommodation elsewhere. This is the true purpose
behind Section 14(1)(b) read with Section 14(2)(b). In
the aforesaid view of the matter, we are unable to accept
the submission that in providing for re-induction of the
tenant in case of repairs and not providing for such re-
induction in case of reconstruction, there is any
unreasonable and irrational classification without any
basis".
The view was re-iterated in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Venkatesha
Gupta and Ors. (2002 (4) SCC 437).
The inevitable result of this appeal is dismissal, which we direct, but
without any order as to costs.