Whether court should pass eviction decree for demolition and reconstruction even if tenanted building is not old and dilapidated?

 In the case on hand, the landlord had obtained the planning permission and is also having sufficient funds for constructing a new building. The landlord cannot be expected to collect a meagre amount of Rs. 550/- per month for a property measuring an extent of 4,200 sq.ft. located in a prime area (i.e.) just opposite to Egmore Railway Station, Chennai. The tenant is also comfortably occupying the premises, by paying a meagre sum of Rs. 550/- per month. The condition of the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous and that the intention should be genuine and not spurious or suspicious. The tenant may be satisfied with the present state of the building, since they pay only a meagre rent, but the Rent Control Legislation is beneficial to both the landlord and tenant. It is enough if the landlord shows his capacity to raise necessary funds and that he has other properties which he can sell to raise necessary funds. If these statutory conditions are fulfilled, the landlord is entitled to an order under Section 14(1)(b). The building sought to be demolished for re-construction need not be old and dilapidated. On facts, the building was found to have existed even in 1956 and it was certainly old and the evidence adduced and documents exhibited buttressed claim that the building was old. The bona fide requirement of the landlord includes means of landlord for reconstruction of building and steps taken in that regard. The evidence adduced disclosed that the landlord had sufficient funds to undertake the task of demolition and re-construction. A landlord need not jingle coins before the Court to prove the bona fide. Obtaining licence for demolition, obtaining estimate for project, etc establish the steps taken by the landlord regarding demolition and re-construction. Further, periodical renewal of licence is not required and failure to renew would not affect the right of the landlord to seek eviction on the ground of demolition and re-construction.

24. It is settled position of law that it is not necessary in order to seek eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the building should be in a dangerous and dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition on that ground. In assessing the bona fides of the landlord, existing condition and age of the building, the preparations made by the landlord are relevant factors to be considered and the fact that the landlord possess sufficient funds and he has taken steps for getting approval for planning permission itself is sufficient to show the bona fides of the landlord.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1880 of 2016

Decided On: 20.10.2016

Hotel A.R.A.P. (P) Ltd. Vs. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Duraiswamy, J.

Print Page

Whether eviction proceeding can proceed further on other grounds if tenanted premises is demolished?

 The High Court has taken a view that once the delivery of the premises had already been taken in execution and for that matter, in case vacant possession of the premises had been surrendered, no further proceedings for eviction can be pursued on any other ground. In the instant case, the delivery of possession had already been taken. The High Court observed that ".........the subject matter of eviction proceedings itself having become non-est by such demolition, the landlord could not have proceeded further with a claim for eviction on other grounds, inter alia, on ground Under Section 11 (4) (iii) of the Act, which was illegally allowed by the Appellate Authority." In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petitions were allowed. The orders passed by the first Appellate Authority were set aside and those of the Rent Control Court were restored. In other words, the Appellants-landlords have been granted eviction only on the ground of demolition and reconstruction Under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act.

9. Thus aggrieved, the Appellants-landlords are before this Court.

10. Heard Sh. R. Basant, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants-landlords and Sh. Ranjith K.C., learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents-tenants.

11. With great respect, we find it difficult to appreciate the view taken by the High Court. The moot question is whether the landlords are entitled to eviction on all the grounds taken by the landlords in the petitions for eviction. It needs to be noted that eviction on the respective grounds under the Act has different ramifications since the grounds being distinct and separate. Therefore, merely because the landlords have taken possession on the basis of an order for eviction granted on one ground, that does not mean that the surviving grounds have become non-est. For all practical purposes and legal consequences, the said grounds do survive to be considered under law.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 6819-6820 of 2009

Decided On: 29.03.2017

Valiyavalappil Sarojakshan  Vs. Sumalsankar Gaikevada

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Citation: 2017(1) RCR 514

Print Page

When court should not give eviction decree to landlord for reconstruction?

The learned Counsel for the petitioner had invited my attention to the averments made in the plaint. It must be noted here that the averments made in the plaint are very vague. What was let out to the tenant was an open land. In the suit filed by the landlord, the requirement has been pleaded only in one sentence in paragraph 3 of the plaint merely stating that the landlord bona fide requires the suit plot for construction of a building. No particulars of his alleged requirement have been set out in the plaint. Perhaps the plaint proceeds on assumption that what is required to be established is that there was a building permission granted and the landlord has a capacity to construct the building. As far as the evidence is concerned, the examination-in-chief of the original plaintiff runs only into 3 paragraphs. The first paragraph contains the description of the property and incorporates a reference to the permission for construction. The second paragraph contains a statement that he requires the suit plot to construct a new building. In the said paragraph he has given estimated cost of construction and the details of the amounts possessed by him. In the 3rd paragraph, it is stated that the deceased tenant might have spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for construction of sheds, but his heirs are having another suitable plot. Thus, the original landlord has not at all stated the particulars or details of alleged bona fide need. In fact, if the entire examination-in-chief is read, it appears that except for stating that he requires the suit plot for construction of a new building, there is not even a whisper of any details of the bona fide requirement,  

18. Apart from the a bald statement in examination-in-chief, no particulars of the alleged requirement have been set out either in the plaint or in the deposition. All the aforesaid statements on oath of the original plaintiff clearly militate against the alleged bona fide requirement on the basis on which the suit was filed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 761 of 1992

Decided On: 14.08.2009

 Surjabai Kevalchand Dhadiwal  Vs.  Sadashiv Sawalaram Gaikwar 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Citation: 2010(1) MHLJ1006:2010(5) ALLMR 134

Print Page

What factors are to be considered before passing decree for eviction of tenant on ground of demolition and reconstruction?

Permission under Section 14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller on mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately demolish the building in question to erect a new building. At the same it is difficult to accept the stand of the appellants that the building must be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human habitation.

For granting permission under Section 14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord of demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bona fide or not. For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account : (1) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b). No court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller.

9. It appears from the facts of the present appeals that the building in question was an old one and was situated in a very busy locality of the town where a number of buildings in and around the building in question had been demolished and shopping complex had been constructed with modern amenities.

The respondent also wanted to demolish the entire building in order to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary permission from the municipal authorities had already been obtained. It had also been claimed on behalf of the respondent that she had sufficient financial resources for construction of the new building. An undertaking had also been given on behalf of the respondent that the work of demolition of the building would commence within one month and would be completed before the expiry of the three months from the date the said respondent recovered possession of the building.

Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Controller had passed an order in terms of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act directing the appellants who were tenants in the building in question to deliver possession of the building to the respondent. According to us, all relevant factors have been taken into consideration and there is no scope for any interference by this Court. As such we are left with no option but to dismiss these appeals.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeals No. 5948-5950 of 1990.

Decided On: 10.10.1996

Vijay Singh  Vs.  Vijayalakshmi Ammal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Kuldip Singh, M.M. Punchhi, N.P. Singh, M.K. Mukherjee and Saiyed Saghir Ahmad, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1997 SC 47:(1996)6 SCC 475

Print Page

Whether landlord can seek eviction of tenant on ground of demolition and reconstruction to earn better income?

No doubt, the landlord still intends to occupy the floors other than the ground floor for residential purposes. But, so long as he is in a position to satisfy the requirement of Section 18A of the Act consistent with the building to be put up in terms of the relevant building laws, it could not be held that the claim for eviction on the ground of rebuilding is not bona fide. After all, the building is 100 years old. It is situated in a growing city like Calcutta and it is fetching a meagre income for the landlord by way of rents. Surely, an intention to put the building to better use by way of earning better income consistent with the developments in the locality, cannot be held to be not a bona fide intention, unless of course there is some clear material negativing the bona fides of such an intention. We do not see anything in the present case which would militate against the bona fides of that intention of the landlord.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Writ Petition No. 1829 of 2007 

Decided On: 05.04.2007

 Vishwamitra Ram Kumar Vs. Vesta Time Company

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

H.K. Sema and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Citation: (2007) 14 SCC 374

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for landlord to reconstruct and permit tenants to re-enter if he seeking eviction on ground of demolition?

 A perusal of the aforesaid provisions show that where a building is reasonably and 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 said building, the tenant shall have right of re-entry in the premises on its reconstruction. The language of Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 is plain and simple and does not suffer from any ambiguity. Therefore, when a landlord requires a building to be demolished, necessarily he has to reconstruct the building on the same site of the building and on reconstruction of new building the tenant has a right to re-enter in the said premises. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that the word "and" occurring in Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 is disjunctive and it has to be read as "or" meaning thereby that after demolition of the building the landlord is not required to reconstruct the building. If such interpretation is given, then it would encourage the unscrupulous landlord to get eviction of the tenants on the ground of demolition of the building which would be repugnant to the object of the Act which aims to prevent unreasonable eviction of the tenant from the premises. We are, therefore, of the view that where the landlord requires demolition of the building, he has necessarily to reconstruct the same with a right to the tenant to re-enter in the premises.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. Nos. 9987 and 89 of 1995

Decided On: 04.11.1999

Kondeti Suryanarayana  Vs.  Pinninthi Seshagiri Rao

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.N. Khare and S.N. Phukan, JJ.

Citation: AIR2000 SC70:(1999) 8 SCC 658

Print Page

What are necessary conditions for seeking eviction of tenant on ground of demolition and reconstruction?

We accordingly hold that Section 14(1)(b) is satisfied only if the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the "immediate", i.e., direct, sole and timely purpose 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, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building. The Act does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant circumstances, requires demolition. These are matters which are to be proved by evidence.

31. It must, however, be emphasised, that in order to satisfy the test under Section 14(1)(b), the condition of the building need not have deteriorated to the extent of the building being in danger of crumbling down, but the condition must be such as to indicate a bona fide requirement for the timely, genuine and direct purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The personal requirement of the landlord or any member of his family for residence or business is not germane to Section 14, and to import that concept for the construction of that section, as the High Court appears to have done, is to project Section 10 into Section 14, and that is an exercise which has no warrant in the law.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5226 of 1990

Decided On: 09.11.1990

 P.ORR and Sons (P) Ltd.  Vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.K. Thommen, K.N. Saikia and N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.

Citation:(1991) 1 SCC 301

Print Page