Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. G. Vasudevan, for Petitioners.
  • M.V Krishnan and S. Ravi, for Respondents.
Judges
  • S.S Subramani, J.
Acts
  • Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act
  • provisions of the Rent Control Act
  • Rent Control Act.
  • Section 14(1)(b)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. G. Vasudevan, for Petitioners.
  • M.V Krishnan and S. Ravi, for Respondents.
Judges
  • S.S Subramani, J.
Acts
  • Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act
  • provisions of the Rent Control Act
  • Rent Control Act.
  • Section 14(1)(b)
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This Revision Petition arises from R.C.O.P No. 4 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller, Dindigul. Landlords originally filed an eviction petition seeking possession on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The original petition initially alleged that the landlords wanted to demolish the entire structure to put up a building complex, mentioning the State Bank of India as an intended occupant; subsequently the petition was amended to include averments required under Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act and to state that Karur Vysya Bank had offered financial assistance of Rs. 15 lakhs and that necessary plan and licence had been obtained.

The tenants (petitioners in the present Revision) filed a counter denying the bona fides of the landlords, asserting that the respondents were landlords only in respect of the site and that the tenants' grandfather had constructed the superstructure; they also denied that the building required demolition and said the State Bank of India had shifted and no longer required premises in the locality.

The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, finding the requirement had ceased because the State Bank of India had moved and that the Commissioner did not certify the building as imminently dangerous; the Rent Controller found repairs could keep the building for some years and accepted the tenants' denial of title to the superstructure as bona fide. The landlords appealed; the Appellate Authority (in R.C.A No. 22 of 1993) reversed and allowed eviction. Aggrieved, the tenants pursued the present Revision petition. The Court below (the author of this opinion) confirmed the Appellate Authority's judgment and dismissed the Revision petition with costs.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act, eviction can be allowed on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction when an alleged intended occupant (the State Bank of India) has shifted away.
  2. Whether the physical condition of the building (as reported by the Commissioner) and local economic considerations suffice to establish the statutory requirement of demolition and reconstruction.
  3. Whether the landlords have demonstrated financial capacity (including third‑party assistance) and preliminary statutory steps (plan/licence) necessary for bona fide demolition and reconstruction.
  4. Whether the tenants' denial of title to the superstructure is bona fide or constitutes a ground for eviction (including whether such denial is barred by prior orders or res judicata).

Arguments of the Parties

Tenants' Arguments

  • The eviction petition's original case was that the landlords wanted to demolish to provide accommodation for the State Bank of India; because the State Bank of India has shifted to another location, that requirement has ceased and thus there is no basis under Section 14(1)(b).
  • The tenants disputed landlords' bona fides and contended that the respondents were landlords only of the site and not of the superstructure, asserting that the tenants' grandfather had constructed the building.
  • Counsel for the tenants also pointed to alleged lapse of a licence by the landlords as indicative that they had no genuine intention to reconstruct.

Landlords' Arguments

  • The landlords amended the eviction petition to include averments required by Section 14(1)(b) and asserted bona fide requirement to demolish and reconstruct; they produced a plan and a licence and contended Karur Vysya Bank offered financial assistance of Rs. 15 lakhs.
  • The landlords relied on the Commissioner's Report and plan (Ex. C.1 and Ex. C.2) showing the building was not in good shape and that substantial repairs would be uneconomical, supporting the need for demolition and reconstruction.
  • They argued that the tenants' earlier actions (including invoking the Rent Control Act to deposit rent in court—Ex. A.3) amounted to an acceptance of landlord title and that tenants' later denial of title is an afterthought lacking good faith and may be barred by res judicata.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
AIR 1989 SC 2187 = 1990-1-L.W. 572 (Majati Subbarao v. P.V.K. Krishna Rao (Deceased) By Lrs.) That a denial of title in the course of an eviction proceeding constitutes a ground for eviction provided the denial is not bona fide; the denial need not be antecedent to the eviction petition and may be relied upon by the landlord without requiring a separate suit, thereby avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The Court relied on this authority to hold that the tenants' denial of title over the superstructure—despite earlier conduct admitting tenancy (Ex. A.3)—was not bona fide and therefore constituted an independent ground for eviction in the present proceedings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through a series of focused analytical steps, applying statutory criteria and evidence as presented in the record:

  1. On the contention that eviction was sought primarily to accommodate the State Bank of India and that the Bank's subsequent shifting defeats the claim, the Court observed that the original catalyst for filing (the Bank's interest) does not determine the statutory sufficiency of the landlords' later‑amended claim under Section 14(1)(b). The court noted that the ultimate question is whether the building requires demolition and reconstruction, and the intended post‑reconstruction occupant is ancillary to that statutory inquiry.
  2. On the sufficiency of the Commissioner's report (Ex. C.1) and plan (Ex. C.2): the Court accepted that although the Commissioner did not certify the building to be imminently dangerous (i.e., imminently likely to collapse), the report still indicated the building was "not in good shape" — damaged rafters, windows without doors, cracks — and that extensive expenditure would be required for repairs. The Court held the statute does not demand a finding that the building is in a dangerous or imminently collapsing condition; rather, the physical condition is a major but not sole consideration.
  3. The Court emphasized that economic and locality considerations are relevant under the Act. Whether a modern building with better amenities would make superior economic use of the site, the potential advantages to both landlord and tenant from reconstruction, and the expected expenditure on repairs are all matters relevant in assessing the bona fides and necessity of demolition and reconstruction.
  4. Regarding financial capacity: the Court accepted that the letter from Karur Vysya Bank offering assistance (Ex. A‑1) and the evidence of P.W.1 sufficed to show the landlords' ability to raise funds for reconstruction. The Court rejected the contention that only the landlord's personal funds could establish financial capacity; the presence of third‑party financial assistance is acceptable to demonstrate capacity.
  5. On the alleged lapse of licence: the Court explained that licence renewal procedures and practicalities mean a licence filed earlier may lapse while litigation is pending; such lapse does not in itself negate bona fides. The Court rejected the argument that lapse showed absence of genuine intent to reconstruct, noting practical reasons (pendency of proceedings, changing regulatory requirements) why immediate renewals may not have been sought.
  6. On the denial of title by tenants: the Court found that the tenants' earlier act of invoking the Rent Control Act and obtaining permission to deposit rent in court (Ex. A.3) constituted an admission of tenancy. The subsequent denial of title to the superstructure in the eviction proceedings, the Court held, was an afterthought lacking good faith. Relying on the cited Supreme Court authority, the Court treated the denial of title as a stand‑alone ground for eviction because it was not bona fide.
  7. The Court also addressed the tenants' attempted withdrawal of the denial‑of‑title contention before the Court and concluded that the belated withdrawal demonstrated that the contention had been taken without good faith initially; withdrawal at that stage did not salvage the tenants' position.
  8. On balance, given the Commissioner's report, the plan, the evidence of financial assistance and the tenants' conduct with respect to title, the Court found that all statutory ingredients under Section 14(1)(b) were satisfied and that there was no lack of bona fides on the part of the landlords.

Holding and Implications

The Revision petition is dismissed and the judgment of the Appellate Authority allowing eviction is confirmed.

Direct consequences and immediate effects:

  • The Appellate Authority's order allowing eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is affirmed.
  • The Court also held, alternatively, that the tenants' denial of title to the superstructure (contrary to their earlier conduct) was not bona fide and itself constituted an independent ground for eviction.
  • The Revision petition was dismissed with costs.

Broader implications: The opinion applies established principles (including the cited Supreme Court authority) about denial of title in eviction proceedings and about the spectrum of factors relevant under Section 14(1)(b). The Court did not purport to lay down a new principle of law beyond application of the statute and existing precedent; the decision resolves the dispute between the parties on the facts and legal materials before it.

End of summary. This summary is strictly confined to information contained in the provided opinion.

Show full summary ...

    Ammal Pillai And Others v. Varadarajulu Complex A Partnership Firm Rep. By Its Partners.

    This Revision Petition is filed by the tenants in R.C.O.P No. 4 of 1984, on the file of Rent Controller, Dindigul. Eviction was sought against the petitioners on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

    2. Initially in the eviction petition, when it was filed, there was no averment therein that the building is in a bad shape, or that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. In the petition, it was originally stated that the landlords wanted to put up a building complex after demolishing the entire structure. It is also alleged that the State Bank of India is intending to have their office in that building, and being an important locality, they wanted to demolish the entire structure and put that area to better use. Later, by amendment, necessary averments that are required under Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act were incorporated, and it was further contended that the Karur Vysya Bank has offered financial assistance of Rs. 15 lakhs to the landlords for putting up construction and to make use of the structure for their use. They also contended that they have got the necessary plan and licence, and they require eviction bona fide for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.

    3. In the counter filed by the petitioners herein (tenants), they disputed the bona fides of the landlords, and by virtue of an amendment, raised a contention that the respondents herein are not the landlords of the building but only in respect of the site. It was contended that the petitioner's grandfather initially put up a structure after getting a lease of the land, and thereafter the petitioners have put up the present structure in the property. It was, therefore, stated that there is no landlord and tenant relationship in so far as the building is concerned. They further said that the State Bank of India has shifted to some other building, and they do not require any premises in that area and, therefore, the requirement alleged in the petition has ceased to exist. They also said that the building is in a good shape and the same does not require demolition and construction.

    4. The Rent Controller held that since the State bank of India has shifted their office from the premises to some other place, the requirement has ceased to exist. It is further found by the Rent Controller that it cannot be said that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction in the sense that the Commissioner who visited the property has not stated that it will collapse at any time or that it is in a dangerous condition. The Rent Controller further found that if necessary repairs and maintenance is done, for some more years the building can lost. Rent Controller further held that when P.W 1 was examined, a suggestion was put to him as to whether the building was not constructed by the petitioner's grandfather, and since the suggestion was not denied the denial of title in so far as the superstructure is concerned, is bona fide. For the above reasons, the eviction petition was dismissed.

    5. Aggrieved by the order of Rent Controller, landlords preferred R.C.A No. 22 of 1993. The Appellate Authority reversed the order of Rent Controller and allowed eviction.

    6. While reversing the order, the appellate Authority held that the denial of title now put forward by the tenants is lacking in good faith. The Appellate Authority took note of Ex. A.3, an application filed by the tenants themselves in RCOP. No. 107 of 1982, seeking permission of the Rent Controller, to deposit the rent in Court. The same was allowed. The Appellate Authority held that since the tenants themselves (i.e respondents before the Appellate Authority) had innvoked the provisions of the Rent Control Act and wanted permission for depositing the rent in Court thereby accepting the title of the landlords, the denial of title over the superstructure in the present proceedings can only be an afterthought. The Appellate Authority said that in view of Ex. A.1, the said contention is barred by res judicata.

    7. The Appellate Authority further found, on the basis of the Commissioner's Report Ex. C.1 and Plan Ex. C.2, that the the building is not in good shape. It found that most of the windows are without any doors, the rafters have got damaged and portions of the walls have also developed cracks. Under the above circumstances, the Appellate Authority said that the claim that the building requires demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and the landlords have satisfied the other statutory requirements. Eviction was, therefore, allowed.

    8. It is against the said judgment, the tenants have come up in Revision.

    9. Learned counsel for the petitioners (tenants) submitted that in the eviction petition the requirement is stated as, to accommodate the State Bank of India, and if that requirement has ceased to exist, the necessity for demolition and reconstruction is also not available. It is the case of the counsel that the State Bank of India has already shifted its Branch from that locality to another locality, and, in the eviction petition as it originally stood, landlords did not say that the building requires demolition. The allegation was only, that to provide accommodation to the State Bank of India, the entire building will have to be demolished, and they wanted to put up a building complex. This, according to the learned counsel, is not a requirement under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

    10. I do not think the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted. May be, the requirement at the time of filing the petition was a need of the State Bank of India to have their Branch in that locality, and that requirement prompted the landlords to file eviction petition. The requirement was that the building needs demolition and reconstruction. May be, after demolition and reconstruction, the State Bank of India might have put up their own Branch. That is only a place for better use after demolition.

    11. It is true that the State Bank of India had shifted to another portion in a building of their own. But that does not bar the landlords to get eviction of the tenant from the building, on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. Ex. C.1 and C.2 are Report and Plan give a vivid picture of the building. The Commissioner has not given a Report that the building is in a dangerous condition, and it may collapse at any time. That is not the standard that is required under the Rent Control Act. The condition of the building is one of the requirements, or we may say that it is the major requirement, but that by itself alone is not enough. The locality where the building is situated, how far that particular area can be put to better use if a modern building is put up, whether any developments have taken place and what are the economic advantages which both parties can obtain if a new building is put up, are all matters of relevance, along with the physical condition of the building. When huge amounts will have to be spent on repairs and maintenance, it will not be of any economic advantages from the view point of the landlord, though the tenant may be satisfied with that requirement. When we consider the demolition and reconstruction, the views of the landlord as owner of the building are also of some importance.

    12. Viewed from that angle, the Commissioner's Report satisfies all the requirements under the Statute. The Commissioner has stated that the building is not in good shape, though he has not certified that it is in a dangerous condition. We find from the Report that a huge amount will have to be spent on repairs and age of the building also makes it clear that to keep it in good repair will not be economical. If a new building is put up in the locality with modern amenities, the tenants can also take advantage of these amenities, and have a better showroom. Naturally, that also will be an attraction to customers, by which the landlord also will be benefited. On the basis of the Commissioner's Report and the evidence of P.W 1, it is clear that the building requires demolition and reconstruction.

    13. Regarding the financial ability of the landlords, apart from the evidence of P.W 1, we have Ex. A-1, letter written by the Karur Vysya Bank that they are ready to give necessary assistance for putting up a new construction. Law does not insist that for putting up a construction, the landlord alone should invest the amount and that he must prove that he has got means. If there are persons to assist him financially, even then, it can be said that the landlord has got the capacity to raise necessary funds. This condition is also satisfied. The rough plan is also fSiled by the landlords. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that even though licence was taken initially, landlords have allowed the same to lapse, and that shows that they have no idea of putting up the construction.

    14. I do not accept the said contention for various reasons. By merely filing a licence, the landlords cannot put up the construction. Authorities are also made known at that time that there is a building, and that has to be demolished, and it is in the occupation of the tenant. Court can take judicial notice of pendency of Rent Control Proceedings. Every year the licence will have to be renewed, and longer the pendency of the proceedings, number of times the renewal will have to be made. By the time eviction is ordered, even the Rules for granting the licence would have changed, or there may be many changes even in the locality itself, by acquisition or taking away of the property by erosion, etc. By merely filing a plan at the time of filing of petition, nobody can be sure that on the basis of that plan, the landlord is going to put up construction therein. It is only for the purpose of proving the bona fides, and to show his readiness to put up the construction, a Plan will have to be filed. By the action of the tenant, the landlord is not in a position to get possession, and he has to allow the licence to lapse. The Court may not insist that every year the landlord should get it renewed. After the eviction petition is filed, if the landlord is not taking steps for immediate demolition and reconstruction, the Act provides the legal consequences. The argument of the learned counsel is, therefore, rejected. I find that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction, and the landlords have satisfied all the legal grounds. Once all the ingredients under the Section are satisfied, and there is no lack of good faith, law presumes bona fides in their claim. I hold that the eviction petition was filed by the landlords in good faith, and the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

    15. Even without going into the ground of demolition and reconstruction, the tenants are liable to be evicted on another ground. In spite of Ex. A-3, order which concludes the rights of parties, tenants have taken a contention that the superstructure did not belong to the landlords. That amounts to denial of title over the building. Once Ex. A-3 concludes the rights, and in spite of the same, the tenants raise such a contention, which they fully know as false, the said contention can be said to be only lacking in good faith. That by itself is a ground for ordering eviction. The landlords need not be driven to another proceeding for the said purpose. I am supported to take that view in the light of the decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 2187 = 1990-1-L.W. 572 (Majati Subbarao v. P.V.K Krishna Rao (Deceased) By Lrs..) where thier lordships said that ‘A denial of title in the course of eviction petition constitutes a ground for eviction provided the denial is not bona fide and it is not necessary that in order to constitute a ground for eviction the denial of title must be anterior to the filing of the eviction petition. To insist that a denial of title in the written statement can be taken advantage of only in a subsequent suit to be filed by the landlord would only lead to unnecessary multiplicity of legal proceedings as the landlord would be obliged to file a second suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of forfeiture entitled by the tenant's denial of his character as a tenant in the written statement. Ex. A-3 is an order obtained by the tenants themselves in a proceeding initiated by them, admitting that they are tenants in the building.

    16. Learned counsel submitted that he will withdraw that contention. I do not think that the subsequent withdrawal at this stage will be of any benefit to the tenants. Once such a contention is withdrawn, that itself shows that the said contention was taken without any good faith. Further, before the Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority, he wanted a decision on this point, and only when the tenants failed to get an order in their favour, they now think of withdrawing the same before this Court. That also shows that there is lack of good faith in their contention.

    17. In the result, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is confirmed. The Revision petition is dismissed with costs.

    KA/RR/VCS

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Ammal Pillai And Others v. Varadarajulu Complex A Partnership Firm Rep. By Its Partners.
    (Dec 13, 1996)