1. All these four revision petitions arise out of common judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, dismissing the appeals filed by the four petitioners against the orders of eviction passed against them by the Rent Controller. All the four petitioners herein are tenants in the various positions of the same building bearing different door numbers (door No. 22/312, 313, 314 and 315). As regards all the petitioners except the petitioner in C.R P. 136 of 1979 the two grounds urged for the purpose of eviction are: (i) wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) bona fide requirement of the premises for purposes of demolition and reconstruction. As regards the petitioner in C R P. No. 136 of 1979, an additional ground of evictun has been urged by the respondent-landlady. The Rent Controller by a common judgment in all the four petitions filed against the petitioners therein held that the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent had been duly established, except in respect of the petitioner in C.R.P 138 of 1979. As regards the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, the Rent Controller held that the requirement of the landlady is bona fide, and, therefore, she is entitled to an order of eviction on that ground alone. In respect of the subletting alleged against the petitioner in C.R P. 136 of 1979, the Rent Controller held that the subletting has not been proved. On the above findings rendered by the Rent Controller he ordered eviction as against all the four petitioners. In appeals filed by the petitioners, the Appellate Authority held that the ground of wifely default in payment of arrears of rent bad been established as against all the petitioners, except the petitioner in C.R.P 138 of 1979. As regards the ground based on bona fide requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction, the finding of the Rent Controller was also upheld by the Appellate Authority. As regards the allegations of subletting as against the petitioner in C.R P. 136 of 1979, the Appellate Authority found on the materials that the sub-letting has been duly proved. In these revision petitions the petitioners challenge the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority on the above three grounds.
2. On the question of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent, there is no dispute that for certain months the rents have not been paid. But, such default, it is urged, cannot be taken to be wilful But, the finding of the Appellate Authority is that the default committed by the petitioner-residents is wilful in that even if the landlady has refused to receive the rent, they should have deposited the amount in a bank or before the Rent controller, which they have not done, and once they have not remitted the lent after knowing the consequence of non-payment, the default should be taken to be wilful. On the materials, I am not able to say that the decision of the Appellate Authority on this question is erroneous.
3. On the question of the landlady's bona fide requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that absolutely there are no bona fides in the request of the landlady's requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. It is said that the respondent landlady is not in such a financial position as to demolish and reconstruct the building. It is also urged that the plan of the building which has been filed before the court has been obtained alter filing of the petition for eviction and that that shows that the ground of the requirement of the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction could only be an afterthought. I do not see how the obtaining of a plan subsequent to the filing of the evection petition will show that the requirement of the premises by the landlady for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. To find out the bona fides of the requirement of the landlady, one has to see whether she has got sufficient funds to undertake the work of demolition and reconstruction of the building. In this case the Appellate Court finds that the buildings are very old and the landlady wants to demolish and reconstruct the same into a modern building with a view to get better return from the property. Ex. A-10 is the approved plan and Ex A.11 is the building licence. Ex.A.12 is the renewal licence and Ex. A.13 is the estimate for the proposed construction. On these materials the Appellate Authority finds that these documents show the landlady's bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The respondent has also shown that she has got ample means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction. As a matter of fact, the respondent's husband as P.W.1 has shown that there is a bank deposit of Rs. 50 000 in savings account which he intends utilising to demolish and re-construct the budding. On the finding of the Appellate Authority which is based on the materials on record, it is not possible to say that the requirement of the respondent is not bona fide at all. I have, therefore, to accept the findings of the authorities below that the landlady requites the premises bona fide for demolition and reconstruction. As the above two grounds of eviction are found to have been established, it is not necessary to go into the other questions as to whether the petitioners in C.R.P 136 of 1979 is guilty of unauthorised subletting, as in any event, the despondent is entitled to succeed in getting an eviction on the two grounds. In this view, all the revision petitions are dismissed. The petitioner will, however, have three mouths' time to vacate.
VCS