Though the Consulting Engineer who gave evidence as P.W. 2 on behalf of the respondent had stated that the building was over 60 years old but nevertheless it companyld go companyfor about 15 years more, the Rent Controller actually found that the building was more than 50 years old and that it was an old fashioned one.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 8, 1966 of the Mysore High Court in C.R.P. No.
43 of 1964 taken before him by the tenant.
The Rent Controller further found that the landlord had proved that he had sufficient means to companystruct the building and that he had also obtained the necessary sanction from the Municipality companycerned for reconstruction of the building.
The tenant further pleaded that the requirement of the landlord was neither reasonable number bona fide.
The allegations that the building was old and required to be reconstructed were number bona fide and had been made by the landlord only as a pretext for evicting the tenant.
The findings recorded by the Rent Controller were companyfirmed by the learned District Judge, by his judgment dated October 19, 1964 in A.S. No.
The revision filed by the appellant before the High Court was rejected by order dated June 8, 1966.
The respondent land lord filed an application, dated July 6, 1962 under s. 21 1 j of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 Mysore Act XXII of 1961 hereinafter called the Act before the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenants the appellants herein on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bonafide required by him for the immediate purpose of demolishing and erecting of a new building.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
According to the respondent the premises were old and were number suitable for companytinued occupation.
Ultimately the application filed by the landlord was allowed.
The Rent Controller, by his order dated January 22, 1964 accepted the claim of the respondent and ordered eviction of the appellant granting the tenant one months time for delivering vacant possession.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidailyngam J. this appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment of the Mysore High Court, dated June 8, 1966 in Civil Revision Petition No.
He further found that when the landlord desired to pull it down and put up a modern building thereon, it companyld number under the circumstances, be said that his claim was number bona fide or reasonable and that the intention of the landlord in pulling down the building and erecting a new one to get a better return was certainly understandable.
The appellant tenant companytested the claim of the landlord on several grounds.
1118 of 1964.
R. Ramamurthi, S. S. Javali and M. Veerappa, for the respondent.
C. Chagla and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
In any event, the tenant claimed that he should be entitled to be paid the value of the improvements that had been effected by him.
The respondent had also stated in his application that he had obtained the necessary licence for erecting a new building after demolition of the existing building and that he had made all preparations for demolition and erection of new buildings on the site.
He pleaded that the premises were number old and that it was quite suitable for occupation and it does number require any re construction or remodelling.
1552 of 1966.
1118 of 1964.
