TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old structure which is liable to crumble on its own at any time. The present structure apart from being old, is not also in a manner which is consistent with the area and the general nature of buildings in the adjoining locality. Anna Salai in Madras is admittedly-one of the prime locations from business point of view and land in this area is scarce. It is, therefore, not only in the interest of the petitioner but also in general public interest that such a location should he put to the best use. The petitioner as the owner of the property is entitled to have the property put to the best possible use. 4. Denying the allegation regarding the condition of the building, the tenant stated- ...the allegation in para 4 that the building 'is an old structure which is liable to crumble on its own at any time' is palpably false to the knowledge of the petitioner themselves and is backed up by, Engineering calculations furnished by them earlier. On earlier occasions the petitioner filed H.R.C. No. 2837 of 1978 under Section 4 of Act 18 of 1960 and averred in para 4 '...the building is a pucca structure built up with first Class materials. Though the building is an old one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to demolish an existing building and reconstruct it into a bigger, more productive and higher income yielding one...Therefore, though the condition of the building is not dilapidated, the respondents claim can be certainly entertained on the ground of putting the property into a profitable and better use. 5. The building in question is generally known as P. Orr Sons . It is one of the landmarks of the Madras City representing a style of architecture that was once in fashion. It stands on, what is generally known as, the Mount Road, but now renamed as Anna Salai. The site of the building is indeed valuable. If demolished and reconstructed, the landlord would undoubtedly be in a position to earn much larger profits. Any prudent businessman having sufficient funds, as the landlord undoubtedly has, will want to demolish the building for economic gains. The question, however, is whether, as found by the High Court, eviction can be allowed under Section 14(1)(b) solely for the purpose of the landlord's economic gains and without regard to the condition of the buildings or the fundamental legislative intent to protect the tenant from unreasonable eviction. 6. It is pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ality, the greater demand for accommodation and various other factors, it has become uneconomical to allow the old building to stand, notwithstanding its sound and safe condition, or its impressive facade and style, and a much larger profit can be derived from the rents which a larger reconstructed building will yield, then, counsel says, a prudent landlord having sufficient means to erect a larger building is perfectly justified in seeking eviction under Section 14(1)(b), and his requirement is, by every economic test, reasonable and bona fide and that requirement comes well within the ambit of Clause (b) of the sub-section. 8. We would now refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 10 deals with eviction of tenants , while Section 14 deals with recovery of possession by landlord for repairs or for reconstruction . Section 10 states A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Sections 14 to 16... . Section 10 allows eviction of a tenant either because of the lapses or breaches of contract and the like on the part of the tenant [Sub-section (2)] or because of the personal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated; or (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), unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenant is evicted and perhaps permanently - speaks of the immediate purpose of demolishing the building with a view to reconstruction. Immediate means at once; without delay . Immediate also means directly connected; not secondary or remote ; not separated by any intervening medium (Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition; The Concise Oxford Dictionary, New 7th Edition). This clause no doubt denotes urgency. Section 14(2)(b) stipulates that the landlord should give an undertaking to substantially commence 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) will result in the imposition of penalty under Section 33(3)(b). Section 14(1)(b), however, does not require instant demolition, but demolition within the specified time. Immediate purpose , in the context in which the expression appears, related to directness rather than speed, although absence of the latter negatives the former. It denotes connection and timely action, but not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Controller may allow, and when the landlord has failed to so act in accordance with his undertaking, Section 15 authorises the Controller to direct that the tenant be put back in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions. Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 14, however, only speaks of an undertaking by the landlord that he would substantially commence the demolition of any material portion of the building within one month and complete the same within 3 months from the date of recovery of possession or within such further period as the Controller may allow. Section 16 allows the tenant the right to reoccupy the building on the original terms and conditions of the lease if the landlord has failed to act in accordance with his undertaking under Section 14(1)(b). But the section does not speak of any undertaking by the landlord to reinduction the tenant in the new building erected by him. Nor does the Act contain any provision for enforcement of the landlord's expressed intention to erect a building on the site of the demolished building. Once a building is totally demolished, and a new building is erected in its place, the Act would cease to apply t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the applicable provisions of the law. In proceedings for judicial review, the Court does not sit in judgment over appreciation of evidence and findings of facts by the authority empowered by the statute. He is the final judge of facts, and so long as he has taken into account all relevant facts and has eschewed from his mind all irrelevant circumstances and has correctly understood and applied the law, including the rules of natural justice, his judgment is generally regarded as final and not open to challenge. On the other hand, where he has acted in excess of his jurisdiction or asked himself the wrong questions or misunderstood or misapplied the law or failed to consider the relevant circumstances or allowed himself to be persuaded by irrelevant circumstances, his conclusions are liable to be reversed as perverse by a court exercising judicial review. Any repository of power must act in accordance with the law and on the basis of relevant evidence. He must be guided by reason and justice and not by private opinion. 19. We shall now examine some of the decisions construing the relevant provisions. In Metalware Co. Etc. v. Bansilal Sarma Co. Etc.: [1979]3SCR1107, this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertheless be in quite a good and sound condition, is being taken advantage of by a landlord in order to make such an application with an ulterior purpose, which purpose might be, for instance, to obtain far more advantageous terms of rent in the future. What the section really contemplates is a bona fide requirement; that, necessarily implied that it is in the interests of the landlord to demolish and reconstruct the building, and that the fact that the building is old is not merely a pretext for advancing the application, with the object of evicting the tenant, and of obtaining higher rentals....(Page 1498) (emphasis supplied) 21. In Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal, this Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 13 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2006 B.K. (8 of 2006 BK), the provisions of which are in pari material with Section 14(1)(b). This Court stated- ...the Controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim. To reach this conclusion, obviously the Controller must be satisfied about the reality of the claim made by the landlord, and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 24. In K.P. Lonappan and Sons v. S. Mohamed Iqbal: (1981)1MLJ386 P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. followed the same line of reasoning as was adopted by the Madras High Court in the earlier cases cited above. The learned Judge stated: ...The authorities below had applied their mind regarding the existing condition of the building and had correctly come to the conclusion that the building requires demolition and reconstruction....(Page 387) This line of reasoning of the learned Judges of the Madras High Court seems to be consistent with what we have stated above in regard to the vital importance of the condition of the building for the purpose of invoking the power of the statutory authority under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. 25. However, this Court had in Panchamal Narayan Shenoy v. Dasthi Venkateshc Shenoy [1970]3SCR734 expressed a certain view on which much reliance is placed by the landlord's counsel. In considering Section 21(1)(j) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (Mysore Act XXII of 1961), this Court stated- The proviso to Section 21(1)enumerates the various circumstances under which a landlord may seek to recover possession of the property from his tenant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5) 2 MLJ 209, Ramamurti, J. expressed the view that the condition of the building was only one of the various considerations for the purpose of making an order under Section 14(1)(b). The learned Judge, however, stated: ...In my 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 demolish the building or whether the provision is invoked merely with a view to evict the tenant.... (Page 213) The learned Judge thus regarded that the condition of the building was one of the important matters to be considered, but did not seem to accept it as a vital consideration for the exercise of power under Section 14(1)(b). 28. In K.J. Sivalingam v. S. Guruswamy and Anr. (1983) 2 MLJ 85 , Nainar Sundaram, J. stated: ...While the age and condition of the buildings are relevant factors to be taken into account, it is not possible to insist that the condition of the building must be such that there is an imminent threat of the same crumbling down in the near future and only in such a contingency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of demolishing it with a view to erecting a new building on the site of the existing building. Various circumstances such as the capacity of the landlord, the size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authority in considering an application for recovery; but the essential and overriding consideration which, in the general interests of the public and for the protection of the tenants from unreasonable eviction, the legislature has in mind is the condition of the building that demands timely demolition by reason of the extent of damage to its structure making it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs. While the condition of the building by itself may not necessarily establish the bona fide requirement under Clause (b), that condition is not only one of the various circumstances which may be taken into account by the Controller, but it is the essential condition in the absence of which it would not be possible for the landlord to prove that he has a bona fide requirement which is timely, direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
