The learned Judge recorded a further finding to the following effect That apart, the landlord has demolished the rear portion of the Victory House and also the upstairs portion of the demised premises, which would support the case of the landlord that the companydition of the building was number good.
This application for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the revisional order of the Madras High Court dated August 5, 1986 upholding the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
There were several tenants in the premises who, realising the genuineness of the landlords stand, volunteered to vacate and surrender possession.
The respondent landlord applied for the petitioners eviction on the ground that the building had become more than a century old and was numberlonger safe for the tenant to occupy and, therefore, the building had to be pulled down and a new one raised.
The petitioner maintained that he was in possession of the premises from 1971 and the Managing Director of the respondent had agreed to renew the lease for a period of 10 years and the petitioner bad deposited a sum of Rs.
The High Court found that the building was an old one.
It was further maintained that the respondent had offered to sell the land and the building measuring 10 grounds for a companysideration of Rs.
The petitioner went before the High Court challenging the appellate order of eviction and reiterated its objections to the maintainability of the application for eviction.
The respondent landlord had ultimately to ask for eviction under Section 14 I b of the Act for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.
On appeal, the Appellate Authority examined the entire material on record and on an appropriate analysis thereof came to hold that the application for eviction had to be granted.
On the other hand the respondent wanted to turn out the petitioner from occupation with a view to raising the companysideration amount for selling portions of the property.
The Rent Controller dismissed the application.
The petitioner, however, refused to do so.
in the ground floor of the premises known as the Victory House situated on the Mount Road in Madras on a monthly rent of Rs.
The petitioner further claimed that the building did number require demolition or re construction.
20 lakhs to the A petitioner but subsequently backed out and filed the application for eviction.
He accordingly decreed eviction.
A The petitioner raised an additional companytention that the Managing Director had numberauthority to institute the proceeding.
The petitioner is a tenant of about 7,000 sq.
P.W.3 in his evidence has specifically stated that the companydition of the building is bad.
The other tenants like Indian Airlines etc.
have vacated the building excepting the petitioner.
7.000/ .
21.000/ .
