VIJAY SINGH ETC. ETC. versus VIJAYLAKSHMI AMMAL

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 10-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

VIJA Y SINGH ETC. ETC. 
v. 
VIJA YLAKSHMI AMMAL 
OCTOBER 10, 1996 
[KULDIP SINGH, M.M. PUNCHHI, N.P. SINGH, 
M.K. MUKHERJEE ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 196(}-Sections 
14(1)(b), J6-Recove1y of possession by landlord for repairs or for reconstrnc-
tioit-Building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human habita-
tion-Rent control/er to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding 
regarding bonafide requirement of landlord. 
A 
B 
c 
The respondent landlady filed petitions for eviction of the appellants D 
tenants u/s. 14(1) (b) of he Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) 
Act, 1960, from the premises let out for non-residential purposes, alleging 
that the building was an old one, 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, and as such the respondent also wanted to demolish 
the entire building in order to construct a new shopping complex for which 
necessary permission from municipal authorities had already been ob-
tained. An undertaking was 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 three months while claiming that she had F 
sufficient financial resources for construction of the new building. The 
Rent Controller held that the requirement of the entire building for 
purpose of demolition and reconstruction by the respondent was bonafide 
and the respondent was entitled to an order of eviction of the appellants 
from the respective portions in their possession. Appeals against the order G 
were dismissed by the appellate authority affirming the findings recorded 
by the Rent Controller. Civil Revision applications were dismissed at the 
admission stage itself, High Court holding that in view of the concurrent 
findings of the courts below in respect of the bonafide requirement for 
purpose of demolition and reconstruction, there was no occasion for 
interference. Hence these appeals. 
H 
385 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellants alleged that the Rent Controller could not have directed 
eviction merely on the ground that the respondent wanted to demolish the 
building for reconstruction of a new shopping complex and that any such 
order could have been passed only after the respondent had satisfied the · 
Rent Controller that the requirements and conditions prescribed u/S 
B 14(1)(b) of the Act have been fulfilled. 
The questions raised for consideration were as to whether for evic-
tion of the tenant of the building u/s 14(l)(b) the landlord has to satisfy 
the Rent Controller that the condition of the building is such that it is 
immediately required to be demolished and whether the expression 'imme· 
C diate purpose of demolishing' has any nexus with the age and condition of 
the building or it indicates only the immediate need and urgency of the 
landlord to demolish such building in order to reconstruct a new one of 
the same site. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
E 
HELD : Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease 
and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for eviction of a tenant on the ground of 
demolition of the building for erecting a new building, the building need 
not be dilapidated or dangerous for human habitation. If that was the 
requirement there was no occasion to put a condition to demolish within 
a specified time, and to erect a new building on the same site. Sub-section 
(1) of Section 16 of the Act contemplates that permission has been granted 
by the Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(b) for demolition of the build-
ing, but if such demolition is not carried out in term of the order and 
F undertaking, then Rent Controller can order the landlord to put the tenant 
in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions. If the 
building is dangerous and dilapidated requiring immediate demolition for 
safety, then there is no question of Rent Controller directing landlord to 
put the tenant in possession of such building on the original terms and 
conditions, on account of the failure of the landlord to commence the 
G demolition within the period prescribed. Similarly, there was no occasion 
to link the demolition of such building with erection of new building and 
then to give the landlord freedom from the r

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