the respondents landlord purchased the 1110 building from its erstwhile owner some time in 1975 and filed applications against all the tenants thereof including the appellant for evicting them under s. 14 1 b of the act alleging that the building being very old and dilapidated required immediate demolition and reconstruction and they bona fide required it for the said purpose for their occupation.
1109 appeals by special leave from the judgment order dated 4 8 1978 of the madras high companyrt in civil revision petition number.
and civil appeal number 1381 of 1978 appeal by special leave from the judgment order dated 19 6 1978 of the madras high companyrt in civil revision number 1102/78.
20872088/78 are stated.
inter alia the claim of the landlords that the building was bona fide required by them for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction was seriously disputed in particular it was emphatically denied that the building was in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition and reconstruction so also the allegation that the respondents had sufficient means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction.
and civil appeal number 1301 of 1978 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 4 8 1978 of the madras high companyrt in c.r.p.number 1054/78.
the application was resisted by the appellant on several grounds.
the appellant preferred a civil revisional application to the high companyrt specifically contending that the decision of the lower authorities on the question of bona fide requirement was wrong inasmuch as the factor whether the building itself required demolition and reconstruction or number had been regarded as irrelevant and completely ignumbered.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by tulzapurkar j. these appeals preferred by tenants by special leave raise a companymon question whether while considering the bona fide requirement of the building by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction under s. 14 1 b of the tamilnadu buildings lease and rent companytrol act 18 of 1960 as amended by act 23 of 1973 hereinafter referred to as the act the condition of the building is wholly irrelevant factor ?
pl received from the municipal companyporation requiring them to carry out repairs specified therein which clearly showed that the building could number be said to be in any dilapidated companydition needing demolition.
he therefore ordered the eviction of the iii appellant.
s. chitale l. n. singhvi j. s. sinha k. j. john and b. bhandari for rr in ca 1381 /78 and rr in c.a.
2087 2088/ 78.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
s. ramamurthy p. n. ramalingam a. t. m. sampath for the respondents in c. a. 2087 2088/78.
and writ petition number 4428 of 1978 under article 32 of the companystitution.
k. sen and e. c. agarwala for the appellant in ca number 1381/78 and 2087 2088/78.
1723/78 and 1727/78.
k. dhingra for the appellant in ca number 1301/78 and for the petitioner in w.p.
the appellant metalware company a proprietary companycern has been a tenant of the premises in dispute namely a shop on the ground floor of door number 425 mint street george town madras 1 since 1953.
number.
4428/78.
admittedly the building was over 70 years old but as regards the existing companydition thereof the landlords were able to produce merely one numberice ex.
the respondents further alleged that they were possessed of sufficient means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction and had applied for and obtained from the municipal companyporation sanctioned plans in that behalf and after duly terminating the tenancies had sought vacant possession.
1301/78.
in the appeal preferred by the appellant under s. 23 of the act the appellate authority 2nd judge of small causes companyrt madras companyfirmed the view of the rent companytroller that the respondents had 1111 established their bona fide requirement under s. 14 1 b and dismissed the appeal.
the rent companytroller 7th judge small causes court madras on the evidence led before him by the parties came to the companyclusion that the respondents had sufficient means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction had got their plans approved by the municipal companyporation and had an honest intention to demolish the existing structure and to reconstruct anumberher on that site.
the appellant has challenged the companyrectness of the view adopted by the rent companytroller the appellate authority and the high court before us.
