These four revisions are directed against the common Judgment in R.C.A Nos. 18 to 21 of 1994, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur, confirming the orders passed in R.C.O.P Nos. 37, 25, 36 and 26 of 1992 on the file of Rent Control-Principal District Munsif, Sattur, on the petitions filed by the respondent herein, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 14(1)(b)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act.

2. The respondent, who is a partner of T.M.P.R Kathirvelu & Brothers, and the landlord of the petition/premises has been doing business in a rented building belonging to Tamil Nadu Metal Products. Since the said Tamil Nadu Metal Products demanded the respondent to vacate the said premises, the respondent required the petition premises for his own use. Moreover, the buildings also very old and are yielding very low income. Therefore, he required the premises for demolition and reconstruction, with a view to improve the building and to gel more income. Hence the respondent filed the above R.C.O.Ps on the file of the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Sattur, for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act.

3. This was resisted by the petitioners stating that the requirement of the respondent was not bona fide, and that the partners of T.M.P.N Kathirvelu and Brothers, the partnership firm of the landlord/respondent, are also the partners in Tamil Nadu Metal Products and both the concerns are sister concerns. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioners that the partners of the above concerns as well as the members of the said family have got lot of non-residential premises at Virudhunagar itself, and that the condition of the premises is good, and that therefore the requirement of the petition premises on the grounds of demolition and reconstruction, and for owner's occupation was not a bona fide one.

4. Before the Rent Controller, on the side of the petitioner, the respondent herein, two witnesses were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-9 were marked. The respondent in the respective R.C.O.P has been examined as R.W 1. In R.C.O.P Nos. 25 and 26 of 1992, the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan have been marked as Ex. C1 and C2.

5. On consideration of these materials, the Rent Controller found that the respondent required the petition premises bona fide by for the purpose of owner's occupation for doing his partnership business, after demolishing and reconstructing the same. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the said orders of the Rent Controller in a common Judgment, holding that the requirement of the respondent was bona fide.

6. Challenging the common judgment, the petitioners in these revision petitions, mainly contended that the eviction sought by the respondent herein under two different Sections viz. Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) and Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, which are mutually contradictory to each other, would go to show that there is lack of bona fide on the part of the respondent.

7. To substantiate this submission Mr. Mathivanan learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the contradicting stands taken by the respondent to evict the petitioners have not been taken into consideration by both the Rent Controller as well as by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Learned counsel further contends that on one ground the respondent pleads that he requires the petitions premises for his own occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, and on another ground he requires the petition premises for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, for the purpose of getting more income. Elaborating this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners would read out Section 10(3)(a)(iii), Section 14(1)(b), Section 14(2)(1) and Section 16 of the Act.

8. In short, according to learned counsel for the petitioners the requirement for demolition and reconstruction cannot go along with the requirement for own occupation, as these two purposes are mutually exclusive and therefore, the petitions for eviction are unsustainable. He would also further, contend that if actually the landlord requires the petitions premises for his personal occupation, then the question of demolition and reconstruction would not arise, and that the fact, he wants to demolish and reconstruct the premises would show, that there is no immediate necessity for him to occupy the same for his own use. On the strength of this argument, learned counsel for the petitioners made a sincere attempt before this Court, to show that the requirement of the premises by the respondent was not bona fide.

9. However, this argument was effectively resisted by the counsel for the respondent, who filed caveat petitions. In the lengthy submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent, he would point out various portions of the Judgments of both the authorities, wherein various reasons have been given to arrive at a conclusion that the requirement of the respondent was genuine and bona fide one.

10. As pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, the records and the orders of Rent Controller, and the common Judgment of Rent Control Appellate Authority would reveal that as early as in 1988, the respondent sought permission from the concerned Municipality, by filing necessary documents including sketch and obtained necessary orders for demolition and reconstruction of the petition premises. It is also found by both the authorities, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, especially on the basis of Commissioner's report, that the age of the buildings was more than 80 years old, and they were in dilapidated condition. It is also held that the partners of T.M.P.N Kathirvelu & Brothers are not in any way connected with Tamil Nadu Metal Products which demanded eviction of the respondent from its premises, in which the respondent has been doing business. It has also been established that the respondent has got sufficient means for demolishing and reconstructing the petition premises. Therefore, it is clear, that the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority have gone into the factual aspects meticulously and come to the conclusion that the petitions were sustainable both under law and on facts, as the requirement of the premises by the respondent was bona fide.

11. However, the present question raised before this Court is whether the respondent is entitled to the prayer of eviction, since the eviction is sought on two different grounds under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, which are contradicting each other, and the requirement for two purposes viz. for demolition and reconstruction, and for owner's occupation is mutually exclusive, and whether the claim of the landlord is a device and intended to serve an oblique purpose, which would certainly militate against the bona fide claims made by the petitioner in the petitions for eviction.

12. This question of law has already been decided by this Court in so many decisions as referred to below:

(1) In Ponnuswami Naicker v. K. Anandan (1988 (1) L.W 31), it has been held by this Court that the requirement for own occupation for the purpose of business and the requirement for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction are not contradictory to each other and they can be combined even in one petition.

(ii) In Nandan Brothers and others v. Kamaladevi Chandak and others (1989 (2) M.L.J 469=1989-2-L.W. 25), while similar questions have been raised that the requirement for demolition and reconstruction cannot go along with the requirement for own occupation as they are mutually exclusive, this Court observed that “that the said contention has no substance and there is no inconsistency in the stand taken by the respondents, as the grounds for eviction are not mutually exclusive and they are, complementary to each other,” In the said decision, this Court followed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nathella Sampathu Chetty v. Sha Vajineo Bapulal (1977 (1) M.L.J 289=80 L.W 73), wherein it has been held that “there was not inconsistency in those allegations and that the said allegations were not relevant for considering the question of bona fide, and that they could not affect the bona fides of the claim made in the petition for eviction, and that so long as the evidence does not justify the finding that the claim is a device and intended to serve an oblique purpose, it will go a long way towards the claim being honest.”

13. In the instant case, as indicated earlier, the respondent has established his bona fide requirement, by saying that he has been doing business in a rented premises, from which he is now sought to be vacated, that the condition of the petition premises is not good, as the age of building is about 80 years, and that he obtained necessary permission from the concerned Municipality as early as in 1988 for demolishing and reconstructing the petition premises.

14. While following the principles laid down by this Court in the decisions referred in the earlier paragraphs, it is not possible for me, to hold that the requirement of the respondent was not bona fide, merely because, two purposes of requirement are combined in one petition, in view of the fact that the said purposes are not contradictory and are not mutually exclusive, but they are complementary to each other.

15. Mr. Mathivanan, learned counsel for the revision petitions cited a decision reported in A.I.R 1996 S.C.W 4198=1997-1-L.W. 218 Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal), in order to show that the Rent Controller has to be satisfied about the bona fide requirement of the landlord, which must mean genuineness of his claim. As discussed earlier, the Rent Controller has gone into the factual aspects in detail, and his conclusion has been confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

16. In that view of the matter, I do not find any justification to interfere with the factual findings given by the authorities below.

17. In the result, all the revisions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

KA/RR/VCS