VIJAY SINGH ETC. ETC.versusVIJAYLAKSHMI AMMAL

                        VIJAY SINGH ETC. ETC.                                     A
                                      v.
                        VIJAYLAKSHMI AMMAL


                            OCTOBER 10, 1996
                                                                                  B
          [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-    c
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.

       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

         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
E 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 restrictive provisions of the Act
  for a period of five years from the date on which the construction of such
  new building is completed and notified to the local authorities concerned.
H Permission under Section 14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Control·
                  VUAY SINGH v. VDAYIAKSHMI AMMAL                           387

 ler on mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately               A
 demolish the building in question to erect a new building. For granting
  permission under Section 14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to
 consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the require-
  ment of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a new
  building on the same site is bonajide or not. For recording a finding that       B
  requirement for demolition as bonajide, the Rent Controller has to take
  into account: (1) bonajide 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 statutory requirements of the Act. These are some of the
  illustrative factors which have tow be taken into consideration before an        C
. order is passed under Section 14(l)(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. The building in
  question was an old one and was situated in a very busy locality of the town     D
  where a number of buildings in and around the building in question had
  been demolished and shopping complex had been constructed with modern
  amenities. The respondent also wanted to demolish the entire building in
  order to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary permission
  from the municipal authorities had already been obtained. It has also been
  claimed on behalf of the respondent that she had sufficient financial            E
  resources for construction of the new building. An 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 the three months from the date the said respondent
  recovered possession of the building. Taking all the circumstances into          F
 consideration, the Controller had passed an order in terms of Section
 14(1)(b) of the Act directing the appellants who were tenants in the
  building in question t.J deliver possession of the building to the respon·
  dent. All relevant factors have been taken into consideration and there is
 no scope for any interference by this Court. [397-E-H, 398-A-H]
                                                                                   G
     Meta/ware and Co. Etc. v. Bansilal Sanna and Co. Etc., [1979] 3 SCC
398 and P. O" and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Mad.) Ltd.,
[1991] 1 sec 301, referred..

      R.P. David v. Daniel, (1967) 1 Mad LJ 110; Mahboob Badsha v. M.              H
    388                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A Manga Devi, (1965) 2 Mad. W 209 and KJ. Sivalingam v. S. Gurnswamy,
    (1983) 2 Mad W 85.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5948-50
    of 1990 Etc.

B        From the Judgment and Order dated 27.6.90 of the Madras High
    Court in C.R.P. No. 1268, 1323 of 1990.

        R. Sundaravaradhan, T.L. Viswanath Iyer, A. Ranganathan, R.K.
  Sharma, S. Srinivasan, A.T.M. Sampath, M.K.D. Nambordiri, AV. Ran-
C gam, K. Rajendra Chowdhary, K.V. Mohan, Vineet Kumar, K.V.
  Venkataraman, K. Ram Kumar and R.V. Viswanathan for the appearing
  parties.

          The Judgments of the Court was delivered by

D          N.P. SINGH, J. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the
    tenants of premises bearing No. 76, in Car Street, Thirupapuliyur in the
    State or Tamil Nadu. According to the appellants, the said premises had
    been let out for non-residential purposes and the appellants had been
    paying the monthly rent regularly. The respondent, who is the landlady
    (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') filed petitions before the Rent
E   Controller for eviction of the appellants under Section 14(1)(b) of the
    Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter
    referred to as the 'Act'). It was alleged in the petitions aforesaid that the
    building in question was an old one and was situated in a very busy locality
    of the town where a number of buildings in and around the building in
p   question had been demolished and shopping complex had been con-
    structed 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 obtained. It was also claimed on behalf of the respondent that
    she had sufficient financial resources for construction of the new building.
G   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 from the date the said
    respondent recovered possession of the building. Those petitions were
    resisted on behalf of the appellants saying that the building was not an old
H   one and it can stand for many more years to come. It was also denied that
                VIJAYSINGHv. VIJAYIAKSHMIAMMAL[N.P.SINGH,J.)                     389

        the respondent had sufficient financial resources to construct a new shop-      A
        ping complex. By a common order the Rent Controller came to the
        conclusion that the requirement of the entire building for purpose of
        demolition and reconstruction by the respondent was bonafide and as such
        the respondent was entitled to an order of eviction of the appellants from
        the respective portions in their possession. Appeals filed on behalf of the     B
        appellants against the said order were dismissed by the appellate authority
        affirming the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. Civil revision
        applications filed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court were
        dismissed at the stage of admission itself saying that in view of the concur-
.....   rent findings of the courts below in respect of the bonafide requirement of
        the respondent for purpose of demolition and reconstruction, there was no       C
        occasion for interference by the High Court on the civil revision petitions
        filed on behalf of the appellants.

               The aforesaid orders are being questioned in these appeals on the
        ground that the Rent Controller could not have directed eviction merely D
        on the ground that the respondent wanted to demolish the building in
        question for reconstruction of a new shopping complex; an such order
        could have been passed only after the respondent had satisfied the Rent
        Controller, that the requirements and conditions prescribed under section
        14(1) (b) of the Act have been fulfilled. The relevant portion of Section 14
        provides:                                                                    E

                   "14. Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs or for
                reconstruction. -

                (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to
                the provisions of sections 12 and 13, on an application made by a       F
                landlord, the Controller shall, if he is satisfied -

                     (a) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for
                 carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the
                 building being vacated; or                                          G

                     (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, pass an order directing the
                 tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord before H
    390                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A            a specified date.

             (2) No order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the
             building under this section shall be passed -

                 (a) on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub- section (1),
B            unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the building shall, on
             completion of the repairs, be offered to the tenant, who delivered
             possession in pursuance of an order under sub-section ( 1) for his
             re-occupation before the expiry of three months from the date of
             recovery of possession by the landlord, or before the expiry of such
C            further period as the Controller may, for reasons, to be recorded
             in writing, allow; or

                 (b) on the ground specified in clause (b) of sub- section (1),
             unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the work of demolish-
             ing any material portion of the building shall be substantially
D            commenced by him not later one month and shall be completed
             before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers
             possession of the entire building or before the expiry of such
             further period as Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in
             writing, allow."
E It may be mentioned that Sections 12 and 13 referred to in sub-section (1)
    of Section 14 relate to buildings in respect of which the Government shall
    be deemed to be the tenant and the authorised officer has been vested with
    the power to pass an order directing the allottee to deliver possession of
    the building to the landlord before a specified date. We are not concerned
F   with the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 so far the present appeals are
    concerned.

        On a plain reading of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 it
  appears that it is applicable when the landlord requires possession of the
G building for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the
  building being vacated. So far clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14
  is concerned it contemplates a situation where there is a bonafide require-
  ment of the building by the landlord 'for the immediate purpose of
  demolishing it' and 'such demolition is to be made for purpose of erecting
  a new building on the site'. It may be pointed out that in view of clause (a)
H of sub-section (2) of Section 14, where the building had been vacated for
            VUAYSINGHv. VUAYIAKSHMIAMMAL[N.P.SINGH,J.)                    391

    repairs the building has to be offered to the tenant who has delivered A
    possession in pursuance of an order of the Rent Controller for re-occupa-
    tion. No such condition has been prescribed where order of eviction has
    been passed under clause (b) of sub-section ( 1) of Section 14 i.e. for
    immediate purpose of demolishing it in order to erect a building on the
    site. In other words once the Rent Controller is satisfied that the require- B
    ment of the landlord of the building for immediate purpose of demolition
    and reconstruction was bonafide, there is no scope for passing an order
    directing the landlord to allow any portion of the reconstructed building
    to be re-occupied by the tenant who had been evicted. In this background,
,
    the question which falls for consideration is as to whether for eviction of
    the tenant of the building under Section 14(1)(b) the landlord has to satisfy C
    th~ Rent Controller that the condition of the building is such that it is
    immediately required to be demolished. Whether the expression 'immedi-
    ate 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 on D
    the same site. If it is held that Section 14(1)(b) vest power in the Rent
    Controller to direct the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the
    landlord no sooner the Rent Controller is satisfied that the landlord is in
    a position to immediately demolish the building in question in order to
    construct a new building on the said site, it will go against the fundamental
    concept of statutory regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship in urban E
    areas, where special provisions have been made different from the rights
    and obligations of the landlord and tenant under the Transfer of Properties
    Act. With the population explosion and cry for a roof in the urban areas
    a situation was created whether the legislatures of different States had to
    enact Acts regulating the conditions on which premises in such areas are F
    to be let out and tenants are to be evicted. By and large there is no
    uniformity in the provisions applicable to different States. As such from
    time to time this Court has to construe the scope of special provisions of
    a particular State and to say what is that object behind the same. So far
    Section 14(1)(b) is concerned, in the case of Meta/ware and Co. Etc. v.
    Bansilal Sanna and Co. Etc., (1979] 3 SCC 398 it was said:                    G

               "As stated earlier it cannot be disputed that the phrase used in
            Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is "the building is bona fide required
            by the landlord" for the immediate purpose of demolition and
            reconstruction and the same clearly refers to the bona fide require- H
    392                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A            ment of the landlord, it is also true that the requirement in terms
             is not that the building should need immediate demolition and
             reconstruction. But we fail to appreciate how the state or condition
             of the building and and extent to which it could stand without
             immediate demolition and reconstruction in future would be a
             totally irrelevant factor while determining "the bona fide require-
B            ment of the landlord". If the Rent Controller has to be satisfied
           · about the bona fide requirement of the landlord which must mean
             genuineness of his claim in that behalf the Rent Controller will
             have to take into account all the surrounding circumstances includ-
             ing not merely the factors of the landlord being possessed of
c            sufficient means or funds to undertake the project and steps taken
             by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building,
             its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put
             to a more profitable use after reconstruction. All these factors
             being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Controller on
             the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord under
D
             Section 14(1)(b). In a sense if the building happens to be decrepit
             or dilapidated it will readily make for the bona fide requirement
             for the landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any means
             being possessed by the landlord would not be sufficient. Conversely
             a landlord being possessed of sufficient means to undertake the
E            project of demolition and reconstruction by itself may not be
             sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement if the building
             happens to be a very recent construction in a perfectly sound
             condition and its situation may prevent its being put to a more
             profitable use after reconstruction. In any case these latter factors
             may cast a serious doubt on the landlord's bona fide requirement.
F
             It is, therefore, clear to us that the age and condition of the building
             would certainly be a relevant factor which will have to be taken
             into count while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of
             the landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and the same
             cannot be ignored."
G
.... Again a three Judges Bench in the case of P. Orr and Sons (P) Ltd. v.
    Associate Publishers (Madras), [1991] 1 SCC 301 said :


               "Section 14(1)(b) in terms of which a tenant is evicted - and
H           perhaps permanently - speaks of the "immediate" means "at once;
VIJAY SINGH v. VDAYLAKSHMI AMMAL [N.P. SINGH, J.]               393

without c!elay". "Immediate" also means "directly connected; not       A
secondary or remote"; "not separated by any intervening medium"
(Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edn.; Concise Oxford Dictionary,
New 7th edn.). This clause no doubt denotes urgency. Section
14(2)(b) stipulates that the landlord should give an undertaking to
substantially commence demolition of any material portion of the       B
building within one month and complete the same within three
months from the date of recovery of possession of the building or
within such further time as the Controller may allow. Breach of
this undertaking OT a consequential order under Section 16(1) will
result in the imposition of penalty under Section 33(3)(b). Section
14(1)(b), however, does not require instant demolition, but demoli-    C
tion within the specified time. "Immediate purpose", in the context
in which the expression appears, relates to directness rather than
speed, although absence of the latter negatives the former. It
denotes connection and timely action, but not instant action; yet
delayed action is a sign of remoteness of purpose. The expression      D
must be understood as a directly connected and timely purpose,
and not a secondary or remote OT premature purpose. Significantly,
the clause does not say "for the purpose of immediately demolish-
ing", which words might have denoted instant demolition. What
Section 14(1)(b) says is "immediate purpose of demolishing". The       E
legislative intent is that the purpose should be immediate or direct
and not mediate or remote OT indirect or secondary. The condition
of the building need not be such as to warrant instant demolition,
but it must be grave enough to need timely action and rule out
undue or protracted delay. The landlord is not expected to wait
                                                                       F
till the building is in imminent OT immediate danger of crumbling
down so as to necessitate recovery of possession for instant demoli-
tion. The purpose of demolition must of course be immediately or
directly connected with the requirement so as not to be separated
by any intervening consideration. Demolition for the purpose of
erection of a new building must be the direct, immediate, genuine      G
and real requirement of the landlord. The bona fide character of
the requirement is proved by the appropriateness of time and the
absence of any ulterior or irrelevant consideration separating the
requirement from the statutory or permitted purpose. The direct
and immediate nexus between these two elements is proved by the        H
    394                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A           condition of the building and other relevant circumstances. Ab-
            sence of any need for urgency by reason of the strong and sound
            condition of the building will negative the bona fide character of
            the requirement. What is the degree of urgency warranted by what
            extent of damage to the building that makes the requirement
            directly and immediately connected with the statutory purpose is
B           a question of fact which must be decided in each case on evidence.
            But a building which is sound and safe does not qualify for
            demolition in terms of Section 14(1)(b). Any such building falls
            totally outside its ambit."

C          The framers of the Act should have made their intention more
    specific and clea~ while enacting Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, instead of
    leaving it to the courts to interpret the same from time to time. It is not
    clear and specific whether the expression 'Immediate purpose of
    demolishing' is linked with the condition of the building or with the need
D   of the landlord to demolish an existing building in order to erect a new
    building on that site. As the Act purports to give protection to the tenants
    from eviction it cannot be held that the time for eviction is to be decided
    at the will and desire of the landlord. Therefore the expressions 'immediate
    purpose for demolishing' cannot be read to mean the immediate need and
    urgency of the landlord. But at the same time cannot be linked only with
E   the dilapidated and dangerous condition of the building. The age and
    condition of the building has to be taken note to while judging the question
    of bona fide require~ent of the landlord under Section 14(1)(b). But the
    question is as to where to draw the line? Whether it should not only be old
    but dilapidated at the same time being unsafe for human habitation? If that
p   was the requirement for passing an order of eviction, then why the framers
    of the Act have put the other condition that such demolition is to be made
    for purpose of erecting a new building on the site? There are Acts in some
    States where one of the grounds for eviction of the tenant is that condition
    of the building is such that it has to be demolished. But in those Acts there
    is no requirement or condition to erect a new building on the same site.
G   But in the present Act the condition of erecting a building on the site of
    the old building is a must. The Rent Controller has been vested with the
    power to direct the tenant to deliver the possession of the building to the
    landlord only after he is satisfied that after demolition of the old building
    a new building shall be erected. That is apparent not only from Section
H   14{1){b) but from Section 16 also which provides :
        VUAYSINGHv. VUAYLAKSHMIAMMAL[N.P.SINGH,J.]                      395

            "16. Tenant to occupy if the building is not demolished -          A

        (1) Where an order directing delivery of possession has been
        passed by the Controller under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
        section 14 and the work of demolishing any material portion of the
        building has not been substantially commenced by the landlord
        within the period of one month in accordance with his undertaking      B
        under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 the tenant may
        give the landlord notice of his intention to occupy the building the
        possession of which he delivered. If within fifteen days from the
        date of receipt of such notice, the landlord does not put him in
        possession of the building on the original terms and conditions,       C
        the tenant may make an application to the Controller within eight
        weeks of the date on which he put the landlord in possession of
        the building. The Controller shall order the landlord to put .the
        tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and
        conditions.
                                                                               D
        (2) Where in pursuance of an order passed by the Controller under
        clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 14, any building is totally
        demolished and a new building is erected in its place, all the
        provisions of this Act shall cease to apply to such new building for
        a period of five years from the date on which the construction of      E
        such new building is completed and notified to the local authority
        concerned."

In view of sub-section (1) of Section 16 if the work of demolishing any
material portion of the building is not substantially commenced by the
landlord within the period of one month in accordance with his undertak- F
ing under clause (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 14, the tenant may give
landlord notice to his intention to occupy the building the possession of
which he has delivered. Thereafter Controller can direct the landlord to
put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and
conditions. If Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is interpreted to cover only G
buildings which are dilapidated and dangerous· for human habitation, sub-
section (1) of Section 16 would not have provided for reinduction of the
tenant in such building on original terms and conditions.

      From sub-section (2) of Section 16 which was introduced by Act 23
of 1973 it appears that the framers of the Act desired to encourage erection   H
    396                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A of new buildings in place of the buildings which had been totally
  demolished on basis of the order passed by the Controller under Section
  14(1)(b), otherwise there was no occasion to make a provision that if any
  building is totally demolished and a new building is erected in its place, all
  provisions of the said Act shall cease to apply to such new building for a
B period of five years from the date on which the construction of new such
  building is completed and notified to the local authorities concerned. It can
  be said that object of sub-section (2) of Section 16 is that for five years the
  landlord should be free from the restrictive provisions of the Act in respect
  of letting out the premises. There is no provision for reinduction of the
  tenant who had been evicted on basis of the order passed under Section
C 14(1)(b) by the Rent Controller after erection of the new building.

        The Madras High Court with had occasions to deal with the said
  Section has not expressed opinions which can be said to be unanimous on
  the nature of requirement of Section 14(1(b). In the case of R.P. David v.
  N. Daniel, (1967) 1 Mad Ll 110, Chandra Reddy, C.J., speaking for the
D Bench of two Judges stated :

                 "The only requirement of Section 14(1)(b) is the honest desire
             of the landlord to demolish the building and such demolition is to
             be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of
E            the building sought to be demolished. There is nothing in the
             language of this clause to warrant the view that the building should
             be old and decrepit..."

    In Mahboob Badsha v. M. Manga Devi, (1965) 2 Mad LJ 209, the learned
    Judge stated :
F
                "In my opinion the proper view to take of this provision is that
             whenever the condition of the building is not such as to require
             immediate demolition the case of the landlord should be
             scrutinised to find out whether he bona fide intends to immediately
             demolish the building or whether the provision is invoked merely
G
             with a view to evict the tenant ...."

     In K.J. Sivalingam v. S. Gurnswamy, (1983) 2 Mad LJ 85 the learned Judge
     said:

H                "While the age and condition of the building are relevant factors
        VIJAYSINGHv. VUAYLAKSHMIAMMAL[N.P. SINGH,J.]                     397

        to be taken into account, it is not possible to insist that the A
        condition of the building must be such that there is an imminent
        threat of the same crumbling down in the near future and only in
        such a contingency, the landlord could resort to the process under
        Section 14(1)(b) of the Act... ..."

In the case of K Ramachandra Rao v. Krishnaswamy Iyengar, (1976) 1 Mad
                                                                                B
L.T 267 it was observed :

            "... .In my view, it is not possible to hold that the requirement
        of a landlord who has no doubt the means and has obtained the
        necessary licence from the concerned authorities is bona fide where     C
        his case in the petition for eviction is that the building is old and
        in a dilapidated condition and that he therefore requires it for
        purposes of immediate demolition and reconstruction and that
        allegation has not been substantiated but has been found to be
        otherwise in th11t the building has been found to be in a sound         D
        conditions although it is about 50 years old......... "

       On reading Section 14(1)(b) along with Section 16 it can be said that
for eviction of a tenant on the ground of demolition of the building for
erecting new building, the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous
for human habitation. If that was the requirement there is no occasion to E
 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 contemplates that
permission has been granted by the Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(b)
for demolition of the building, but if such demolition is not carried out in
terms of the order and undertaking, then Rent Controller can order the F
landlord to put the tenant in possession of the building on the original
terms and conditions. If the building is dangerous and dilapidated requir-
ing 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 G
the landlord to commence the 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 for the
restrictive provisions of the Act for a period for five years from the date
on which the construction of such new building is comple~ed and notified
to the local authorities concerned. In this background, it has to be held H
    398                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A that neither of the extreme position taken by the respondent or the appel-
    lants can be accepted. Permission under Section 14(1)(b) cannot be
    granted by the Rent Controller on mere asking of the landlord, that he
    proposes to immediately demolish the building in question to erect a new
    building. At the same it is difficult to accept the stand of the appellants
B   that the building must be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human
    habitation. For granting permission under Section 14(1)(b) the Rent Con-
    troller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding
    whether the requirement of the landlord of demolition of the building and
    erection of a new building on the same site is bonafide or not. For
    recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bonafide, the Rent
C   Controller has to take into account : (1) bonafide 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 statutory requirements
    of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken
D   into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14(1)(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.

E         It appears from the facts of the present appeals that the building in
    question was an old one and was situated in a very busy locaJity of the town
    where a m:mber of buildings in and around the building in question had
    been demolished and shopping complex had been constructed with modern
    amenities. The respondent also wanted to demolish the entire building in
F   order to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary permission
    from 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 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
G   before the expiry of the three months from the date the said respondent
    recovered possession of the building. Taking all the circumstances into
    consideration, the Controller had passed an order in terms of Section
    14(1)(b) of the Act directing the appellants who were tenants in the
    building in question to deliver possession of the building to the respon-
H   dent. According to us, all relevant factors have been taken into considera-
         VIJAYSINGHv. VIJAYIAKSHMIAMMAL[N.P.SINGH,J.]                   399

tion and there is no scope for any interference by this Court. As such we A
are left with JlO option but to dismiss these appeals. The appeals are
accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

R.A.                                                    Appeals dismissed.

                                   With                                        B
       Civil Appeal Nos. 4061-65 of 1991.

     N.P. SINGH, J. These appeals are disposed of in terms of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Singh Etc. Etc. v. Vijayalakshmi
Ammal, (Civil Appeal No. 5948- 5950 of 1990) delivered today.                  C
R.A.                                                  Appeals disposed of.