R.V.E. VENKATACHALA GOUNDER versus VENKATESHA GUPTA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 09-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
R.V.E. VENKATACHALA GOUNDER 
A 
v. 
VENKATESHA GUPTA AND ORS. 
APRIL 9, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960--Section 
14(/)(b)-Evictionfor immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction of C 
building-Locality where the building is situated, structural and physical 
features of building, existing nature of construction, availability of new and 
modern building with more space and landlords desire to augment of his 
earnings are all relevant factors-Tenant's willingness to pay higher rent 
expected by landlord on reconstruction is irrelevant-Held, on facts, case for D 
eviction made out. 
Aecording to the appellant-landlord, suit property was situated in a 
business locality but was in a bad condition and the appellant-landlord wanted 
to reconstruct the building so as to augment his earnings. He then submitted 
to the Municipality the condition of the building, the plans for reconstruction E 
which were approved. Appellant-landlord served notice on the respondents-
tenants. Thereafter the appellant-landlord filed petitions for evicting the 
respondents-tenants under Section 14(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease 
and Rent Control) Act, 1960 alleging that the suit property was bona fide 
required for immediate purpose of demolition to be made for erecting a new 
building. Controller dismissed the petitions. Appellant-landlord filed appeals F 
which were allowed. Respondent-tenants then filed revision petitions. High 
Court held that as the tenants were prepared to pay rental which appellant-
landlord expected on reconstruction in respect of the existing accommodation, 
reconstructing the building for augmenting earnings of the appellant-landlord 
after spending Rs. 6 Lakhs, did not arise and thus dismissed the petitions. 
G 
In appeals before the Court respondents-tenants submitted that the real 
purpose of the appellant-landlord is to get rid of the tenants and not to 
reconstruct the property. Further as the condition of the building was neither 
dilapidated nor was so old as to need immediate demolition, the eviction could 
983 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A not have been ordered. Appellant-landlord wanted to.earn more and if such 
expected earnings are secured by retaining the premises in the present 
condition, in view of the offer made by the respondents-tenants, the question 
of reconstruction being allowed does not arise at all. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In eviction petition under Section 14(l)(b) of Tamil Nadu 
Buildin,~ (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 the structural and physical 
features and the nature of the construction of the building cannot be ignored. 
[993-G] 
C 
1.2. In the instant case respondents-tenants are not in full occupation 
of the entire space available. Appellant-landlord proposes to construct a new 
and modern building in busy commercial locality of a rising city. He requires 
a part of the newly constructed building for his own personal use and such 
part of the newly constructed building as would be in excess of his own 
D requirement he is willing to let out at current rate of rent to his tenants which 
would obviously augment his earnings. The newly constructed double storeyed 
building, would certainly provide much more total accommodation than what 
is available. In such circumstances the offer of the tenant that they are 
prepared to pay the rent at the current rate, the one which the landlord expects 
on reconstruction, becomes irrelevant and should not have prev·ailed with the 
E High Court. Thus the High Court ought not to have interfered with the 
decision of the appellate authority. [994-A-C] 
Prabhakaran Nair and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 
238; P. Orr and Sons (P) Ltd v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, (1991] 
1 SCC 301 and Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, [1996] 6 SCC 
F 475, referred to. 
G 
H 
S. Raju and Ors. v. K Nathamani, (1998) 3 LW 214 and A.N Srinivasa 
Thevar v. Sundarambal alias Prema W/o Chandrakumar, (1995) 2 LW 14, 
approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3345-3349 
of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7. l .98 of the Chennai High Court 
in C.R.P. Nos. 3213-3217 of 199 l. 
S. Sivasubramaniam, R. Nedumaran and G. Nageswara Rao, for M.A. 
-
R.V.E. VENKAT ACHALA GOUNDER v. VENKA TESHA GUPTA [R.C. LAHOTI, J.J 985 
Chinnasamy for the Appellant. 
A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.