P. ORR AND SONS (P) LTD. versus ASSOCIATED PUBLISHERS (MADRAS) LIMITED

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 09-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
P. ORR AND SONS (P) LTD. 
v. 
ASSOCIATED PUBLISHERS (MADRAS) LIMITED 
NOVEMBER 9, 1990 
[T. KOCHU THOMMEN, K.N. SAIKIA AND 
N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction-Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and 
Rent Control) Act, 1960: Sections JO and 14( /)(b) bona fide require-
ment and bona fide personal requirement demolition and reconstruction 
of building-Condition of building-Prime factor-Deterioration to 
crumbling state-Whether necessar}~-Absence of need for urgency by 
reason of sound condition of building-Whether negative bona fide 
. character of the requirement for demolition.· 
A 
B 
c 
Judicial Review: Findings of competent authority-When open to 
Court's interference-Appreciation of evidence and findings of facts-
D 
Authority empowered by statute-Final judge of facts-Court not to.sit 
in judgment thereon. 
Words & Phrases: 'lmmediate'-'lmmediate Purpose'-Mean-
ing of. 
The respondent-landlord f"tled a petition before the Rent Control-
ler for eviction of the appellant-tenant under section 14(l)(b) of the 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground 
that the condition of the bnilding compelled immediate demolition and 
that the landlord wanted to put the property to the best possible use. 
E 
The appellant-tenant denied the allegations and contended that the 
F 
building was structurally safe, and that the stand taken by the res-
pondent-landlord in the earlier proceedings under the Act falsified its 
claim. On the basis of evidence on record, the Rent Controller found 
that the building was structurally safe and sound. However, he held 
that the condition of the building as such was not decisive in. deciding 
the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord under section 
G 
· 14(1 )(b) of the Act. Accordingly, he passed an order of eviction. The 
tenant preferred an appeal. The appellate authority concurred with the 
Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction. 
Aggrieved, the tenant approached the High Court. Confirming 
..; 
the fmdings of the authorities, the High Court held that though the 
H 
615 
A 
6)6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
building was structurally sound, it was required _by the landlord for a 
legitimate scheme of demolition and reconstruction with a view to put-
ting the property, to more profitable and better use. 
Against the High Court's order, the tenant has preferred the 
present appeal, by special leave, contending that the respondent-land-
s-
lord has sought eviction of the appellant solely in terms of section 
14(1)(b) of the Act, which relate to the condition of the building compel-
ling immediate demolition and since the condition of the building was 
c 
D 
not as such, the eviction could not have been ordered. 
....._ 
On behalf of the respondent-landlord it was contended that 
section 14(1)(b) of the Act referred to bona fide requirement of the 
landlord for demolition and reconstruction. It was also contended that 
due to various factors, if it became uneconomical to allow the old build-
ing to stand, notwithstanding its sound and safe condition, and a much 
larger profit could be derived from the larger reconstructed building, a 
prudent landlord would be perfectly justified in seeking eviction of the 
tenant under section 14(1)(b) of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 Section 14(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease 
and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is satisfied only if the building is bona fide 
E 
required by the landlord for the "immediate", i.e., direct, sole and 
timely purpose of demolishi~g it with a view to erecting a new building 
on the site of the existing building. Various circnmstances such as the 
capacity of the landlord, the size of existing building, the demand for 
additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage 
and other factors justifying iilvestment of capital on reconstruction may 
F 
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 the 
condition of the building that demands timely demolition by reason of 
the extent of damage to its structure, making it uneconomical or unsafe 
G 
to undertake repairs. While the condition of the building by itself may 
not necessarily establish the bona fide requirement under clause (b), 
tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.