Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the eviction order, holding that age and condition are relevant but not determinative, and that the landlord’s bona‑fide requirement for demolition was sufficient despite the High Court’s improper interference with concurrent findings.

Summary

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming a bona‑fide need to demolish and rebuild the premises for better financial returns. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rejected the petition, holding that the landlord must prove an immediate need for demolition and the building’s age and condition. On revision, the High Court allowed eviction, stating that the statute does not require proof of the building’s age or condition and that the landlord’s requirement was bona‑fide. The tenant appealed, contending that the High Court illegally interfered with the lower courts’ concurrent factual findings and that the tenant should be re‑inducted after reconstruction. The Supreme Court held that although the High Court’s interference with concurrent findings was improper, it did not affect the result; age and condition are relevant but not determinative, and the landlord’s bona‑fide requirement was established. Consequently, the eviction order was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a revisional court may interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower authorities in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(b).
Whether the age and condition of the building are essential criteria for granting eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Whether the landlord must demonstrate an immediate need for demolition to obtain eviction.
Whether the tenant is entitled to re‑induction after the landlord reconstructs the building.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 115

Subjects

evictionrent controlbona fide requirementdemolitionrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingsre‑inductionlandlord‑tenant

Judgment

SHAKEELUR RAHMAN A
v.
SYED MEHDI ISPAHANI

NOVEMBER 29, 2002

[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] B

Rent Control and Eviction:

Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Section
14(/)(b)-Eviction on the ground o/bonafide requirement for demolition and C
reconstruction of building for better financial returns-Eviction denied by
Courts below as age and condition of building not established-In revision
High Court allowed eviction taking the view that establishing age and condition
of building not required by law-On appeal interference of High Court with
concurrent finding of facts in its revisional jurisdiction questioned-Held, D
though interference of High Court is illegal, but in the facts of the case finding
of High Court is sustainable-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 115.

Respondent-landlord filed suit for eviction under Section 14(l)(b) of
Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for bonafide
requirement for demolition and reconstruction of the building in question E
for better financial returns, Rent Controller and Appellate Authority
denied eviction on the ground that in order to seek eviction under the
provision it was mandatory to establish need for immediate demolition and
reconstruction of the building,

In revision, High Court, interfering with the concurrent finding of F
facts of the courts below held that landlord had bonafide requirement for
seeking eviction; that law did not require the landlord to establish
immediate need for demolition and reconstruction of the building; and that
in the instant case despite absence of pleadings regarding age and condition
of the building, material on record established that the building was old
and required demolition, G
In appeal to this Court appellant-tenant contended that intereference
of High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, with the concurrent
finding of facts was illegal; and that there has been no provision for re-
induction of the tenant after reconstruction,
391
H

' I
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS '[2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Respondent-landlord contended that for seeking eviction under
Section 14(l)(b) of the Act, llgP and condition of the building is not the
only criterion, but new structure for better financial returns also
constitutes a honajide requirement by the landlord.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD: I. It is correct that interference of High Court with
concurrent finding of the lower authorities in regard to the age of building
is illegal, but it does not alter the result. Both Rent Controller and
Appellate Authority proceeded on the basis as if age and condition of the
C building are the sine qua non for application of Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil
Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. But, though age and
condition of the building sought to be demolished are relevant factors to
test bonajides of the landlord, they are not determinative of the issue.
Though High Court's approach in interfering with the concurrent finding
of fact is not approved, yet it is not necessary or just to interfere with the
D impugned order, as on the other concurrent findings of facts recorded by
the lower authorities, a finding of bona fide requirement of the landlord
has been recorded by the High Court which is now affirmed by this Court.
The finding is sufficient to sustain the order under challenge.
[396-H; 397-B, Cl

E Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (19°96) 6 SCC 475,
followed.

P. 'Orr and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Madras) limited,
(1991) I sec 301 and KM. Abdul Razzak v. Damodharan, [20001 5 Sec
369, referred to.
F
2. The plea that there has been no provision for re-induction of the
tenant after reconstruction is without any substance. A rational approach
would be •to hold that age and condition of the building are the only
relevant factors, keeping in view the beneficial context of the statute. It is
G not practicable and would be anomalous to expect a landlord to take back
a tenant after a long lapse of time during which time the tenant must
necessarily have found some suitable accommodation elsewhere.
(397-C-E]

Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996) 6 SCC 475,
H followed.
SHAKEELUR RAHMAN r. SYED MEHDI ISPAHANI [ARIJIT PASA VAT, J.] 393

Prabhakaran Nair and Ors. v. State of Tami/nadu and Ors., 119871 4 A
SCC 238 and R. V.£. Venkatachala Gounder v. Venketesha Gupta and Ors.,
120021 4 sec 437, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7656 of
2002.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.2000 of the Chennai
High Court in C.R.P. No. 3165 of 1997.

Krishnamurthi Swami and Ms. Prabha Swami for the Appellant.

S. Sivasubramaniam, R. Balachander and V. Balchandran for the C
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
D
A suit for eviction by the appellant-tenant filed by the respondent-
landlord on the ground available under Section 14(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act') was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
However, the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction allowed the prayer
for eviction. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the tenant has filed this appeal by E
special leave.

In a nutshell, the factual position about which there is not much
controversy, is as follows :-

The suit premises consist of a ground floor and first floor measuring F
-. about I ground and 277 sq. feet. Landlord-respondent, as set out in the
application R.C.O.P. No. 2424 of 1988 on the file of Court of Small Causes
at Madras claimed that the eviction was required for demolition and
reconstruction of the building bearing Door no.5, Clemens Road, Chennai. It
was specifically pleaded that the property is situated in a residential-cum- G
commercial locality wherein multi-storied buildings have been erected and in
order to utilize the property and earn better income he has decided to demolish
the said building completely and desired to construct a multi-storied in the
property. The appellant-tenant disputed the stand of the respondent-landlord
and pleaded that the building is in a sound condition and does not require
demolition at all. The Rent Controller rejected the respondent-landlord's prayer, H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A accepting appellant-tenant's stand. Reliance was placed on this Court's decision
in P. Orr and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Madras) limited,
(1991] I SCC 30 I, to hold that it was mandatory to verify whether the
building in question requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. Though
he accepted the respondent-landlord's case that the new building shall fetch
more income and he has sufficient means to put up the construction, but
B these facts were held to be not much of consequence. Appellate Authority
concurred with the views of Rent Controller. On being approached for revision,
learned Single Judge held that notwithstanding absence of pleadings regarding
age and condition of the building, material on record clearly est<1blished that
the building was old and required demolition. Additionally it was held that
C the importance of the area where the building is situated has undergone a sea
change and there was all around development. Reference was made to the
evidence of witnesses and documents on record which established that an
agreement (P-11) had been executed for demolition of the building in question
and two others owned by landlord's mother and brother, and for putting up
multi-storied structures. The total extent of the property for the three buildings
D was 12\li Grounds, while the building in question was on an area of I Ground
and 277 sq. ft. It was also observed that law does not require that unless the
landlord established beyond doubt that the building was in such a bad and
•
dilapidated condition that it would lead to immediate crumbling down, or
later, he would not be entitled to an order of eviction. Reference was made
E to the evidence of RW l(the tenant), and RW2 (the engineer examined by
tenant) to state about age and condition of the building. With reference to
latter's evidence it was observed that since last forty to fifty years, no
construction was put up with Madras terrace. Further, brick and lime mortar
was used for construction and plastering was by lime mortar. These material
facts which were brought to notice of the Court by the tenant clearly established
F that the building was at least 50 years old and was not in good condition. In
view of the aforesaid conclusions, it was held that respondent-landlord had
bona fide requirements for seeking tenant's eviction.

In support of the appeal learned counsel submitted that the High Court
G has erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction when there were concurrent
findings on facts recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority
that the building was not old and/or its condition was not such as to warrant
immediate demolition. With reference to this Court's decision in KM. Abdul
Razzak v. Damodharan, [2000] 5 SCC 369, it was submitted that the High
Court erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to act as an appellate Court
I-I to re-appraise or re-assess the evidence afresh as an appellate Court and come
SHAKEELUR RAHMAN ,. SYED MEHDI IS PA HAN! [ARIJIT PASA YAT, J] 395

to different findings contrary to the factual findings recorded by the courts A
below.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that
age and condition of the building are not the only criteria for bringing in
application of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. In a given case, wh.ere the
demolition was intended to put up a new structure for better financial returns, B
it also constitutes a bona fide requirement by the landlord.

In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be necessary to
notice the legal position prevailing at the time the landlord filed the petition
under Section l4(1)(b) of the Act. Section 14(1)(b) reads as under:-
c
"14.(1) ..... the Controller, shall, if he is satisfied -**' (b) that the
building is 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 site of the building sought
to be demolished.
D
pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building
to the landlord before a specified date."

The said provision was interpreted by this Court in P. Orr and Sons
case (supra). It was observed that landlord could succeed in an application
under Section 14(1)(b) only when it is established that the building is in E
dilapidated condition which require immediate demolition. This decision was
applied by the Rent Controller for rejecting landlord's application for eviction.
View in the said case was diluted by a subsequent Constitution Bench decision
in Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996] 6 SCC 475. Some
of the relevant observations made in the said case read as follows: F
• "l 0. Permission under Section l 4(l)(b) cannot be granted by the
Rent Controller on mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to
bnn1ediately demolish the building in question to erect a new huilding.
At the same time it is difficult to accept the stand of the appellants
that the building must be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human G
habitation. For granting permission under Section l4(l)(b) the Rent
Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording
a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for 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 H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 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 statuto1Jl requirements of the Act. These are some of
the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration
B before an order is passed under Section 14(J)(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.
c 1 /. Respondent also wanted to demolish the entire building in order
to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary permission
ji·om 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
D 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 three months from the
date the said respondent recovered possession of the building."

(Underlined for emphasis)
E
As observed in para 11 (supra) where the landlord wanted to demolish
the building in order to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary
permission from the authorities had already been obtained and sufficient
financial resources were available for the construction the bona fide
requirement is established. In the case at hand both the Rent Controller and
F the Appellate Authority held that the respondent-landlord wanted to demolish
the building in order to construct a new complex and had requisite financial
resources for undertaking the construction. High Court has referred to Exts.
P8 to PIO and the evidence of PW! to hold that the requisite financial
soundness was to put up new multi-storied complex. In addition, agreement
G vide P-11, to which reference has been made supra, was referred to in this
context.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
High Court interfered with the concurrent finding of the lower authorities in
regard to the age of the building which is illegal. No exception can be taken
H to the contention, but it does not alter the result. As noted above, both Rent
SHAKEELUR RAHMAN r_ SYED l\.-1EllDI ISPAH'.\NI [ARIJIT PASA VAT, J.] 397

Controller and the Appellate Authority proceeded on the basis as if age and A
condition of the building are the sine qua non for application of Section
14(l)(b) of the Act, based on the view expressed in P. Orr and Sons case
(supra). But in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in
Vijay Singh 's case (supra), though age and condition of the building sought
to be demolished are relevant factors to test bona fides of the landlord, they B
are not determinative of the issue. Though we do not approve the High
Court's approach in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact, yet we
do not consider it necessary or just to interfere with the order under challenge,
as on the other concurrent findings of facts recorded by the lower authorities,
referred to above, a finding of bona fide requirement of the landlord has been
recorded by the High Court which is affirmed by us. The finding is sufficient C
to sustain the order under challenge.

A faint attempt was made by learned counsel for the appellant that
there has been no provision for re-induction of the tenant after re-construction.
A rational approach would be to hold that age and condition of the building
are the only relevant factors, keeping in view the beneficial context of the D
statute. This plea is without any substance in view what is stated in Vijay
Singh's case (supra) and Prabhakaran Nair and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
and Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 238. In the latter case, it was observed as follows:

"It has to be borne in mind that it is not practicable and would
be anomalous to expect a landlord to take back a tenant after a long E
lapse of time during which time the tenant 1nust necessarily have
found son1e suitable accommodation else\vhere. This is the true
purpose behind Section 14( 1)(b) read with Section l 4(2)(b ). In the
aforesaid 'iew of the matter, we are unable to accept the submission
that in providing for re-induction of the tenant in case of repairs and F
not providing for such re-induction in case of reconstruction, there is
any unreasonable and irrational classification without any basis''. ·

The view was re-iterated in R. V.E. Venkatacha/a Gounder v. Venkatesha
Gupta and Ors., [2002] 4 SCC 437.
G
The inevitable result of this appeal is dismissal, which we direct, but
without any order as to costs.

K.K.T . Appeal dismissed.

•