Tenant originally filed this Revision, and after his death, his legal representatives have been brought on record, and they have further prosecuted the Revision.
2. Eviction was ordered by the Authorities below on the ground that the building is required by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction.
3. I heard this Revision and dismissed the same as per my order dated 18.9.1996 Against my decision, the matter was taken before the Honourable Supreme Court, and before the Honourable Supreme Court, a submission was made by the revision petitioners that during the pendency of the Revision, the original landlord has sold the property to a third party and the subsequent sale will have material bearing in the result of the revision petition. It was also submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that the tenants came to know about the same only after the disposal of the Revision. When such submission was made, their Lordship of the Supreme Court held thus: —
“Learned counsel states that during the pendency of the revision petition before the High Court, the respondent/landlord sold the property in dispute. According to the learned counsel, with the sale of the property, the ground on which the eviction was based automatically became non-est. Learned counsel further states that he came to know about the sale after the Judgment of the High Court. In the circumstances, the petitioner may, if so advised, approach the High Court and bring the facts to the notice of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
4. After the dismissal of the S.L.P, a Review Application was filed by the tenants as Review Application No. 37 of 1997. As per my order dated 24.11.1997, I allowed the Review Application and directed restoration of the CRP back to file. Thereafter, the purchaser wanted to get himself impleaded 411 the Revision. Accordingly, as per order dated 27.1.1998 passed in CMP 17676 of 1997, the purchaser S. Moula Mohideen was impleaded as second respondent in the CRP.
5. Both the Authorities below have come to the conclusion that the condition of the building is not good, and that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. That is a finding of fact which does not require any interference by this Court, while exercising its revisional powers. The original landlord has also tiled an undertaking that he is prepared to demolish the building within the time stipulated and start reconstruction of the building.
6. Now that the original landlord has sold the property to the second respondent herein, the question to be considered is, whether the bona fides of the original landlord will be sufficient to order eviction.
7. Similar question came for consideration before M. Srinivasan, J., as he then was, in an application for impleading by a purchaser. The learned Judge has held thus in 1989 II M.L.J 254 = 1989 2 L.W 412 (S.V Chidambara Pillai v. S.N.V.R.N Subramaniam Chettiar and others): —
“… The bona fide requirement of the building as contemplated under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act has to be established by letting in evidence at the time of hearing of the R.C.O.P If before the matter is taken up for trial the landlord thinks that he cannot fight with the tenant as the matter was being prolonged for years and sells the property to third parties, it is open to the third parties who have become the owners of the property to continue the proceedings. It may be for the purchasers to establish their bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction as contemplated under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. That is a matter which has to be considered at the time when evidence is let in by both the parties in the R.C.O.P It is open to the tenant to contend and comment during the trial that the purchasers have net proved their bona fides as required by Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act if the purchasers fail to let in evidence to that effect”.
I followed the aforesaid decision in the decision reported in 1997 1 L.W 527 (S.V. Periasamy v. R. Senthil Kumar). In that case, in paragraph 27, I have held that in a petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, the bona fides proved by the vendor will not be sufficient so far as the purchasers are concerned. The qualification of a vendor cannot be equated to that of a purchaser. Even if the building requires demolition and reconstruction, whether the purchaser has got means and whether his claim continues to be bona fide, is a matter which has to be investigated by the Rent Controller. In view of these decisions, I do not mink that the decisions of the Authorities below could be sustained. I feel that the matter requires reconsideration.
8. Learned Counsel for second respondent submitted that he has produced all the documents to show that he has got sufficient means to proceed with demolition and reconstruction, and that his claim is also bona fide. He has also undertaken to demolish the building and start the reconstruction within the time stipulated. Therefore, it was submitted that the bona fides could be found by this Court also.
9. In Revision, I do not mink it will be proper on my part to take into consideration the documents at this stage without giving opportunity to the tenants, to challenge the same in cross-examination. They are also entitled to adduce counter evidence. If I admit the documents submitted by the second respondent, that will amount to denying the opportunity to the tenants.
10. Under the above circumstances, I feel that it is only proper that the matter be remanded to the Appellate Authority, who has also all the powers of a Rent Controller, including the power to take evidence.
11. In the result, I set aside the orders of the Authorities below, and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority for the limited purpose of recording a finding as to the bona fides of the purchaser in seeking eviction. The purchaser (2nd respondent herein) is allowed to let in evidence to show that he has got means to put up a new construction within the time stipulated and also complied with the requirements that are necessary under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. After the second respondent adduces such evidence, opportunity shall be given to the petitioners herein to rebut the case of the purchaser. The matter is remanded only for this limited purpose. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the matter before the Courts close for Summer Recess, since this is an old matter. It is also directed to take the period for disposal, in all seriousness.
12. The Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. C.M.P 6046 of 1997 is closed.
RR/VCS