Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5948 of 1990
PETITIONER:
VIJAY SINGH ETC. ETC.
RESPONDENT:
VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/10/1996
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH & M.M.PUNCHHI & N.P.SINGH & M.K.MUKHERJEE & S.SAGHIR AHMAD
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED BY:
N.P. Singh, J.
N.P. Singh, J.
These appeal have been filed on behalf of the tenants
of premises bearing No. 76 in Car street, Thirupapuliyur i
the State of Tamil Nadu. According to the appellants, the
said premises had been let out for no-residential purposes
and the appellants had been paying the monthly rent
regularly. The respondent, who is the landlady (hereinafter
referred to as the ’respondent’) filed petitions before the
Rent Controller for eviction of the appellants under
Section 14 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the
’Act’). It was alleged in the petitions aforesaid that the
building in question was an old one and was situated in a
very busy locality of the town where a number of buildings
in and around the building in question had been demolished
and shopping complex and had been constructed with modern
amenities, and as such the respondent also wanted to
demolished the entire building in order the construct a new
shopping complex for which necessary permissions from
municipal authorities and already been obtained. It was also
claimed on behalfs of the respondent that she had sufficient
financial resources for construction of the new building. An
undertaking was 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
month from the date the said respondent recovery possession
of the building those petitions were rested on behalf of the
appellants saying that the building was not an old one and
it can stand fort many more years to come. It was also
denied that the respondent had sufficient financial
resources to construct a new shopping complex. By a common
order the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the
requirement of the entire building for purpose of demolition
and reconstruction by the respondent was bonafide and as
such the respondent was entitled to and order of eviction of
the appellants from the respective portions in their
possession. Appeals filed on behalf of the appellants
against the said order were dismissed by the appellant
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
authority affirming the findings recorded by the Rent
Controller. Civil revision applications filed on behalf of
the appellants before the High Court were dismissed at the
stage of admission itself saying that in view of the
concurrent findings of the courts below in respect of the
bonafide requirement of the respondent for purpose of
demolition and reconstruction there was no occasion for
interference by the High Court on the civil revision
petitions filed on behalf of the appellants.
The aforesaid orders are being questioned in these
appeals on the ground that the Rent Controller could not
have directed eviction merely on the ground that the
respondent wanted to demolish the building in question for
reconstruction of a new shopping complex; any such order
could have been passed only after the respondent had
satisfied the Rent Controller, that the requirements and
conditions prescribed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act have
been fulfilled. The relevant portion of section 14 provides:
"14. Recovery of possession by
landlord for repairs or for
reconstruction.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, but subject
to the provisions of Section 12 and
13, on and application made by a
landlord, the Controller shall, if
he is satisfied-
(a) That the building is bona
fide required by the landlord for
carrying out repairs which cannot
be carried out without the building
being vacated.
(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.
(2) No order directing the tenant
to deliver possession of the
building under this section shall
be passed-
(a) On the ground specified in
clause (a) of sub-section (1),
unless the landlord gives an
undertaking that the building
shall, on completion of the
repairs, be offered to the tenant,
who delivered possession in
pursuance of an order under sub-
section (1) for his re-occupation
before the expiry of three months
from the date of recovery of
possession by the landlord, or
before the expiry of such further
period as the Controller may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing,
allow; or
(b) on the ground specified in
clause (b) of sub-section (1),
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
unless the landlord gives an
undertaking that the work of
demolishing any material portion of
the building shall be substantially
commenced by him nor later than one
month and shall be completed before
the expiry of three months from the
date he recovers possession of the
entire building or before the
expiry of such further period as
the Controller may, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, allow."
It may be mentioned that Sections 12 and 13 referred to
in sub-section (1) of Section 14 relate to buildings in
respect of which their Government shall be deemed to be the
tenant and the authorised officer has been vested with the
power to pass an order directing the allottee to deliver
possession of the building to the landlord before a
specified date. We are not concerned with the provisions of
Sections 12 and 13 so far the present appeals are concerned.
On a plain reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 14 it appears that it is applicable when the
landlord requires possession of the building of carrying out
repairs which cannot be carried out without the building
being vacated. so far clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 14 is concerned it contemplates a situating where
there is a bonafide requirement of the building by the
landlord ’for the immediate purpose of demolishing it’ and
’such demolition is to be made for purpose of erecting a new
building on the site’. It may be pointed out that in view of
clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 14, where the
building by the landlord ’for the immediate purpose of
erecting a new building on the site’. It may be pointed out
that in view of clause (a) of a sub-section (2) of section
14, where the building has been vacated for repairs the
building has to be ordered to the tenant who had delivered
possession in pursuance of an order of the Rent Controller
for re-occupation. No such condition has been prescribed
where order of eviction has been passed under clause (a) of
sub-section (1) of Section 14. i.e.. for immediate purpose
of demolishing it in order to erect a new building on the
site. In other words, once the Rent Controller is satisfied
that the requirement of the landlord of the building for
immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction was
bonafide, there is no scope for passing an order directing
the landlord to allow any portion of the constructed
building to be re-occupied by the tenant who had been
evicted. In this background, the question which falls for
consideration is an to whether for eviction of the tenant of
the building under section 14(1)(b) the landlord has to
satisfy the Rent Controller that the condition of the
building is such that it is immediately required to be
demolished. whether the expression ’immediate purpose of
demolishing’ has any nexus with the age and condition of the
building or it indicates only the immediate need and urgency
of the landlord to demolish such building in order to
reconstruct a new one on the same site. It it is held that
section 14 (1)(b) vest power in the Rent Controller to
direct the tenant to deliver possession of the building to
the landlord no sooner the Rent Controller is satisfied that
the landlord is in a position to immediately demolish the
building in question in order to construct a new building on
the said site, it will go against the fundamental concept of
statutory regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship in
urban areas, where special provision have been made
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
different from the rights and obligations of the landlord
and tenant number the Transfer of Properties Act. With the
Population explosion and cry for a roof in the urban areas
a situation was created where the legislatures of different
States had to enact Acts regulating the conditions on which
premises in such areas are to be let out and tenants are to
be evicted. By and large there is no uniformity in the
provisions applicable to different States. as such from time
to time this Court has to construe the scope of special
provisions of a particular state and to say what is the
object behind the same. So far Section 14(1)(b) is
concerned, in the case of Metalware and Co. etc. v. Bansilal
Sarma and Co. etc. (1979) 3 SCC 398 it was said:
"As stated earlier it cannot
be disputed that the phrase used in
Section 14(1)(b) of The Act is "the
building is bona fide required buy
The landlord" for the immediate
purpose of demolition and
reconstruction and the same clearly
refers to the bonafide requirement
of The landlord, it is also true
that the requirement in terms is
not that the building should nee
immediate demolition and
reconstruction. But we fail to
appreciate how The state of
condition of the building and the
extent to which it could stand
without immediate demolition and
reconstruction in future would be a
totally irrelevant factor while
determining "the Rent Controller
will have to take into account all
The surrounding circumstances
including not merely the factor of
the landlord being possessed of
sufficient means or funds to under
take The project and step taken by
him in that regard but also the
existing condition of The building,
its age and situation and
possibility of otherwise of its
being put to a more profitable use
after reconstruction. All these
factors being relevant must enter
the verdict of the Rent Controller
on the question of the bonafide
requirement of The landlord under
Section 14(1)(b). In a sense if the
building happens to be decrepit or
dilapidated it will redially make
for the bona fide requirement of
the landlord though that by itself
in the absence of any means being
possessed by the landlord would not
be sufficient. Conversely a
landlord being possessed of
sufficient means to undertake The
project to demolition and
reconstruction by itself may not be
sufficient to establish his
bonafide requirement if the
building happens to be a very
relevant construction in a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
perfectly sound condition and its
situation may prevent its being put
to a more profitable use after
reconstruction. In any case these
latter factors may cast a serious
doubt on the landlord’s bona fide
requirement. It is, Therefore,
cleared to us that the age and
condition of the building would
certainly be a relevant factor
which will have to be taken into
count while pronouncing upon the
bona fide requirement of the
landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of
The act and the same cannot be
ignored."
Again a three judges Bench in the case of P.Orr and
sons (p) Ltd. V. Associated Publisher (Madras) Limited,
(1991) 1 SCC 301 Said:
"Section 14(1)(b) in terms of
which a tenant is evicted - and
perhaps permanently speaks of the
"immediate" Means "at once’ without
delay", "Immediate" also means
"directly connected; not secondary
or remote", "not separated by any
intervening medium" (Black’s Las
Dictionary, 5th edn.) Concise
Oxford Dictionary, New 7th edn.).
This clause no doubt denotes
urgency. Section 14(2)(b)
stipulates that the land lord
should give and undertaking to
substantially commerce demolition
of any material portion of the
building within one month and
complete the same within three
months from the date of recovery of
possession of the building or
within such further time as the
Controller may allow. Breach of
this undertaking or a consequential
order under Section 16(1)(b),
however, does not require instant
demolition, but demolition within
the specified time. Immediate
purpose", in the context in which
the expression appears, relates to
directness rather than speed,
although absence of the latter
negatives the former. It denotes
connection and timely action, but
not instant action; yet delayed
action is a sign of remoteness of
purpose. The expression must be
understood as a directly connected
and timely purpose, and not a
secondary or remote or premature
purpose. Significantly, the clause
does not say "for the purpose of
immediately demolishing", which
word might have dented instant
demolition. What Section 14(1)(b)
says is "immediate purpose of
demolishing". The legislative
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
intent is that the purpose should
be immediate or direct and not
mediate or remote or indirect or
secondary. The condition of the
building need not be such as to
warrant instant demolition, but it
must be grave enough to need timely
action and rule out undue or
protracted delay. The landlord is
not expected to wait till the
building is in imminent or
immediate danger of crumbling down
so as to necessitate recovery of
possession for instant demolition.
The purpose of demolition must of
course be immediately or directly
connected with the requirement so
as not to be separated by any
intervening consideration.
Demolition for the purpose of
erection of a new building must be
the direct, immediate, genuine and
real requirement of the landlord.
The bona fide character of the
requirement is proved by the
appropriateness of time and the
absence of any ulterior or
irrelevant consideration separating
the requirement from the statutory
of permitted purpose. The direct
and immediate nexuses between these
two elements is proved by the
conditions of the building and
other relevant circumstances.
Absence of any need for urgency by
reason of the strong and sound
condition of the building will
negative the bonafide character of
the requirement. What is the degree
of urgency warranted by what extent
of damage to the building that
makes the requirement directly and
immediately connected with the
statutory purpose is a question of
fact which must be decided in each
case on evidence, But a building
which is sound and safe does not
qualify for demolition in terms of
Section 14(1)(b). Any such building
falls totally outside its ambit."
The framers of the Act should have made their intention
more specific and clear while enacting Section 14(1)(b) of
the Act, instead of leaving it to the Courts to interpret
the same from time to time. It is not clear and specific
whether the expression ’Immediate purpose of demolishing’ is
linked with the condition of the building or wit the need of
the landlord to demolish an existing building in order to
erect a new building on that site. As the Act purports to
give protection to the tenants from eviction it cannot be
held that the time for eviction is to be decided at the will
and desire of the landlord. Therefore the expression
’immediate purpose for demolishing’ cannot be read to mean
the immediate need and urgency of the landlord. But at the
same time it cannot be linked only with the dilapidated and
dangerous condition of the building. the age and condition
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
of the buildings has to be taken note of while judging the
question of bona fide requirement of the landlord under
Section 14 (1)(b). But the question is as to where to draw
the line? Whether it should not only be old but dilapidated
at the same time being unsafe for human habitation? If that
was the requirement for passing an order of eviction, then
why the framer of the Act have put the other condition that
such demolition is to be made for purpose of erecting a new
building on the site ? There are Acts in some States where
one of the grounds for eviction of the tenant is that
condition of the building is such that it has to be
demolished. But in those Acts there is no requirement or
condition to erect a new building on the same site. But in
the Present Act the condition of erecting a building on the
site of the old building is a must. The Rent controller has
been vested with the power to direct the tenant to deliver
the possession of the building to the landlord only after he
is satisfied that after demolition of the old building a new
building shall be erected. That is apparent not only from
section 14(1)(b) but form Section 16 also which provides:
"16. Tenant to occupy if the
building is not demolished-
(1) where an order directing
delivery of possession has been
passed by the Controller under
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
section 14 and the work of
demolishing any material portion of
the building has not been
substantially commenced by the
landlord within the period of one
month in accordance with his
undertaking under clause (b) of
sub-section (2) of section 14 the
tenet may give the landlord notice
of his intention to occupy the
building the possession of which he
delivered. I within fifteen days
from the date of receipt of such
notice, the landlord does not but
him possession of the building on
the original terms and conditions,
the tenant may make an application
to the Controller with eight weeks
of the date on which he but the
landlord in possession of the
building. The Controller shall
order the landlord to put the
tenant in possession of the
building on the original terms and
conditions.
(2) where in pursuance of an order
passed by the Controller under
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
section 14, any building is totally
demolished and a new building is
erected in its place, all the
provisions of this Act shall cease
to apply to such new building for a
period of five years from the date
on which the construction of such
new building is completed and
notified to the local authority
concerned.
In view of sub-section (1) of Section 16 if the work of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
demolishing any material portion of the building is not
substantially commenced by the landlord within the period of
one month in accordance with his under taking under clause
(b) of sub-section (2) of Section 14, the tenant may give
landlord notice of his intention to occupy the building the
possession of which he has delivered. Thereafter Controller
can direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of
the building on the original terms and conditions. If
Section 14 (1)(b) of Act is interpreted to cover only
buildings which are dilapidated and dangerous for human
habitation, sub-section (1) of Section 16 not have provided
for reinduction of the tenant in such a building on original
terms and conditions.
From sub-section (2) of Section 16 which was introduced
by Act 23 of 1973 it appears that the framers of the Act
desired to encourage erection of new buildings in place of
the buildings which had been totally demolished on basis of
the order passed by the Controller under Section 14(1)(b),
otherwise there was not occasion to make a provision that if
any building is totally demolished and a new building is
created in its place, all provisions of the said Act shall
cease to apply to such new building for a period of five
years from the date on which the construction of new such
building is completed and notified to the local authority
concerned. It can be said that object of sub-section (2) of
Section 16 is that for five years the landlord should be
free from the restrictive provisions of the Act in respect
of letting out the premises. There is no provision for
reinduction of the tenant who had been evicted on basis of
the order passed under Section 14(1)(b) by the Rent
Controller after erection of the new building.
The Madras High Court which had occasions to deal with
the said Section has not expressed opinions which can be
said to be unanimous on the nature of requirement of section
14(1)(b). In the case of R.P. David v. N. Daniel, (1967) 1
Mad LJ 110, Chandra Reddy, C.J., speaking for the Bench of
two Judges stated :
"The only requirement of Section
14(1)(b) is the honest desire of
the landlord to demolish the
building 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.
There is nothing in the language of
this clause to warrant the view
that the building should be old and
decrepit......"
In Mahboob Badsha v. M. Manga Devi, (1965) 2 Mad LJ
209, the learned judge stated:
"In may opinion the proper
view to take of this provision is
that whenever the condition of the
building is not such as to require
immediate demolition the case of
the landlord should be scrutinised
to find out whether he bona fide
intends to immediately provision is
invoked merely with a view to evict
the tenant....."
In K.J. Sivalingam v. S. Guruswamy, (1983) 2 Mad LJ. 85
The Learned judge said:
"While the age and condition
of the buildings are relevant
factors to be taken into account,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
it is not possible to insist that
the condition of the building must
be such that there is imminent
threat of the same crumbling down
in the near future and only in such
a contingency , the landlord could
resort to the process under Section
14(1)(b) of the Act......."
In The case of K. Ramachandra Rao V. Krishnaswami
Iyengar, (1976) 1 mad LJ 267 it was observed:
"....In my view, it is not
possible to hold that the
requirement of a landlord who has
not doubt the means and has
obtained the necessary licence from
the concerned authorities is bona
fide where his case in the petition
for eviction is that the building
is old and in a dilapidated
condition and that he therefore
requires it for purpose of
immediate demolition and
reconstruction and that allegation
has not been substantiated but has
been found to be other wise in that
the building has been found to be
in a sound condition although it is
about 50 years old....."
On reading Section 14(1)(b) along with Section 16 it
can be said that for eviction of a tenant on the ground of
demolition for the building for erecting a new building the
building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human
habitation. It that was the requirement there is no occasion
to put a condition to demolish within a specified time, and
to erect a new building on the same site. Sub-section (1) of
Section 16 contemplates that permission has been granted by
the Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(b) for demolition of
the building, but if such demolition is not carried out in
terms of the order and undertaking, then Rent Controller can
order the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the
building on the original terms and conditions. It the
building is dangerous and dilapidated requiring immediate
demolition for safety, then there is no question of Rent
Controller direction landlord to put the tenant in
possession of such building on the original terms and
conditions, on account of the failure of the landlord to
commerce the demolition within the period prescribed.
Similarly, there was no occasion to link the demolition of
such building with erection of new building and then to give
the landlord freedom from the restrictive provisions of the
Act for a period of five years from the date on which the
construction of such new building is completed and notified
to the local authorities concerned. In this background, it
has to be held that neither of the extreme position taken by
the local authorities concerned. In this background, it has
to be held that neither of the extreme position taken by the
respondent or the appellants can be accepted. 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 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
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 bonafide or not. For
recording a finding that requirement for demolition was
bonafide, the Rent Controller has to take into account : (1)
bonafide intention of the landlord for 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.
It appear from the facts of the present appeal that the
building in question was an old one and was situated in a
very busy locality of the down where a number of buildings
in and around the building in question had been demolished
and shopping complex had been constructed with modern
amenities. The 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 constructions for 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
the three months from the date the said respondent recovered
possession of the building. Taking all the circumstances
into consideration, the Controller had passed an order in
terms of Section 14 (1)(b) for the Act directing the
appellants who were tenants in the building in question to
deliver possession of the building to the respondent.
According to us, all relevant factors have been taken into
consideration and there is not scope for any interference by
this Court. As such we are left wit no option but to dismiss
these appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.