LexHARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL versus S.M. ISPAHANI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL
A
v.
S.M. ISPAHANI AND ANR.
MAY 9, 2002
[R.C. LAHOTI AND B.N. AGARWAL, JJ.)
B
Rent and Eviction :
Ta111il Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent ('011trol) Act, 1960-SecLion
14(/)(b)-Availability of ground under-Eviction for demolition of disputed C
building and construction of n1ultistorey building-Age und condilion of the
building not relied on-Courts below finding that the building was old
£filapidated needing reconstruction-·~Eviction orller by Trial Court-Appellate
Court not gral!ling eviction doubting bonafide of' landlord in absence of'
reliance on the age and condition of the building-High Cou,., 'Jrdered for D
eviction-On appeal-Held, in the facts of the case bow
of landlord
could not be doubted-Hence, tenant liable to be evicted .
The suit premises, major portion of,vhich was unbuilt and the built
up portion "'as old dilapidated one, was bci· g used by appellant-tenant
for running an unrecongnised school for chi dren of non-resident Indians. E
Landlords-respondents \'Vho '"ere builders by profession filed suit for
eviction uls 14(l)(b) of Tam.ii Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1960 for the immediate purpose of demolition so as to construct a
multistorey complex thereat.
The plans for construction were ready but the same were not
submitted for approval in view of the fact that delay in disposal of litigation
would entail heavy financial burden on the landlords.
F
During trial, landlord stated that several ·multistorey buildings had G
come up in the vicinity of the suit property and showed how they proposed
to arrange for the funds required for the construction. Trial Court ordered
for eviction. Appellate Court denied eviction on the ground that the
landlords were not entitled to invoke Section 14(1)(b) of the Act as they
lacked bonaflde since they did llOt rely on the condition of the building
929
l~.
~--
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] 3 S.C.R.
A for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. In revision, High Court
."'-
ordered for eviction.
In appeal to this Court appellant-tenant contended that since the
landlords did not rely on the age and condition of the building and they
required it only to construct the multistorey building, the ground under
B section 14(1)(b) of the Act was not available to them; that it would not be
in public interest to order for eviction resulting in closure of school only
to serve the private interest of the landlord. Tenant apprehended that
property might remain lying unconstructed despite being vacated, if plans
for proposed construction were not sanctioned.
c
Disposing of the appeal, the Court.
HELD : 1. There is nothing to cast a shadow of doubt on the
bonajides of the landlords pleading an immediate need for demolition
followed by reconstruction. In the present case it has been found that the
D building is an old construction requiring demolition and reconstruction.
Out of the total area of the property only a part is built up and substantial
portion is lying open and vacant. There is pressure of population on the
developing city and several multistorey complexes have come up in the
vicinity of the property. No fault can be found with the finding of fact
E arrived at by the High Court. It is true that the landlords have not pleaded
and relied on the age and condition of the building as one of the
components of their bonajides but that is immaterial. The age and condition
of the building has been determined and is available for assessing the
bonajides of the landlords' need. 1933-F-H; 934-BI
F
Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammpl, 119961 6 SCC 475,
y-
followed:
R. VE. Venkatachala Gounder v. Venkatesha Gupta and Ors., JT ( 2002)
SC 591, relied on.
G
P. Orr and Sons (P) ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Madras) ltd., 119911
1 sec 301, referred to.
2. It cannot be doubted that landlords are men of means. There is
nothing to doubt the truthfulness of the statement of landlord explaining
H how they proposed to arrange for the funds required for reconstruction· '
+-
..
HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL,. S M. ISPAHANI [RC LAHOTI. J.]
93 J
as per their plans. 1934-C, DI
3. Eviction u/s 14(1) (b) cannot be denied in the name of public
interest. The school is an unrecognised private school run by the tenant
catering to the need of non-resident Indians who have to leave their
children behind in the country. Indeed, the school is being run not for a
social service, but Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.