(Prayer: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.435 of 2008 confirming the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP No.2238 of 2006.)

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.435 of 2008 confirming the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP No.2238 of 2006, this civil revision petition is filed by the tenant.

2. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

(i) The respondent/landlord filed the RCOP No.2238 of 2006 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act(hereinafter referred to as the for short) seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction of the demised premises concerned. The matter was contested by the revision petitioner/tenant.

(ii) On the side of the landlord, his son was examined as P.W.1 along with one Anbaran as P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the tenants side, the tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R4.

(iii) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction. As against the said order the appeal was filed by the tenant for nothing but to be dismissed.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of both the Courts below this revision has been filed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:

(i) Both the Courts below failed to take into account the important ingredient, namely, the bona fide requirement of the landlord.

(ii) The financial wherewithal of the landlord also was not taken into consideration at all by the Courts below.

(iii) There are conflicts of views regarding the age of the building concerned and that fact also was not taken into account by the Courts below.

(iv) Without adhering to the provisions of law, simply the Courts ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument thus:

(a) Absolutely there is no shard or shred, molecular or iota, jot or miniscule extent of evidence available to show that the landlord is having the financial capacity to raise construction. Simply because he could avail loan, that it cannot be assumed or presumed that he is having financial wherewithal to raise construction and on that basis both the Courts below should not have ordered eviction of the tenant. There should have been objective evidence regarding the landlords financial capacity. But in this case absolutely there is nil evidence in that regard.

(b) Anterior to the filing of the RCOP, the landlord sent communications to the tenant to the effect that the demised premises was required for the accommodation of his son to do his business, however, he has given a go-by to it in this RCOP, which was filed not under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, but only under Section 14 of theand that smacks lack of bona fide on the part of the landlord in filing such an application.

Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below and for dismissing the RCOP itself by allowing this revision.

5. By way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would develop his argument, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(i) Both the Courts below adhering to the proper provisions of law ordered eviction.

(ii) The age of the building is not at all germane for ordering eviction under Section 14 of the.

(iii) A landlord has got the right to demolish even a building which is not in dilapidated condition, so as to put his own property into much better beneficial use and the tenant cannot dictate terms.

(iv) While deposing before the Court, P.W.1-the landlords son clearly detailed and delineated, expressed and expounded that in fact the purpose of demolition and reconstruction is only for the purpose of accommodating him to do his business.

(v) It is a settled proposition of law that the landlord is not expected to jingle the coins before the Court to prove his financial capacity.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would pray for dismissal of the revision petition and for confirming the orders of both the Courts below.

6. The points for consideration are as under:

(i) Whether both the Courts below adhered to the provisions of law in ordering eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction or whether they failed to take into account the alleged lack of bona fides on the part of the landlord, as pleaded in the grounds of revision.

(ii) Whether there is any infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below

7. Points:(i) & (ii): Both these points are taken together for discussion as they are interlinked and interwoven, entwined and interconnected with each other.

8. Under Section 14 of thethere are certain recent decisions, which I could hark back to, thus:

(i) (2002)3 M.L.J.130(S.C.) - HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL VS. S.M.ISPAHANI AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus:

8. ..........................." A procedure can be devised to protect the interest of both the tenant and the landlord, specially by taking care of the apprehension expressed by the tenant that the property may remain lying unconstructed inspite of being vacated by the tenant and followed by demolition if the plans for proposed construction are not sanctioned by the local authority. The decree as passed by the High Court is sustained but it is directed that the landlords shall submit the plans of re-construction for the approval of the local authority. Only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authority the decree for eviction shall be available for execution. Such sanctioned or approved plans shall be produced before the Executing Court whereupon the Execution Court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and delivering possession to the landlord-decree holders. Till then the tenant shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the suit premises at the same rate at which they are being paid along with teh plans the landlords shall also file an undertaking before the Executing Court as required by Clause (b) of Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.14 of the."

(ii) 2006(2) CTC 615 S.VENUGOPAL VS. A.KARRUPPUSAMI AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus:

"7. On the question of demolition and reconstruction of the premises in question, much was sought to be made out of the fact that the condition of the building had not been ascertained and, while according to the tenants it was not in a dilapidated condition, according to the landlord it was in a dilapidated condition. We do not attach much importance to the question as to whether the building was or was not in a dilapidated condition because Section 14(1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short the) contemplates a building which 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. Therefore, Section 14(1)(b) does not contemplate that the building sought to be demolished must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition. Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site.

11. In the instant case, we find that the property owned by the landlord, whatever may have been its value in the past, has acquired commercial value and, therefore, the landlord wishes to demolish the old single storey structure and to construct a multi-storied building, which may fetch him higher rent, apart from serving his own needs. The landlord had already applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved. Taking into consideration all these reasons, we are convinced that the landlord bona fide intends to demolish the old building and to construct a new one. Raising funds for erecting a structure in a commercial centre is not at all difficult when a large number of builders, financiers as well as banks are willing to advance funds to erect new structures in commercial areas. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was willing to invest a sum of Rs.One and a half lakh of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs."

9. A mere poring over and perusal of those decisions would amply make the point clear that a landlord has got the right to seek eviction of the tenant, even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition. It is for the landlord to decide as to whether his building should be demolished and reconstructed or not, so as to put it into much better beneficial use.

10. At this juncture, I recollect and call up the maxim - Rerum suarum quilibet est moderator et arbiter Everyone is the regulator and disposer of his own property.

11. Virtually this maxim is found embodied in the aforesaid decisions and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms whether the landlord should demolish his own building or not. Once the landlord decides that the existing building is not of that much beneficial use for him, he is at liberty to demolish and raise a much better building for his utmost beneficial use.

12. Here it is obvious and axiomatic that the building is situated in the heart of the city of Madras and the building itself, even as per the tenants Engineer, more than 55 years old and in such a case, I could see nothing wrong in the decision taken by the landlord to demolish such old building and have a new building there, so as to accommodate his sons business.

13. The decisions cited supra would clearly demonstrate and display that now a days banks are vying with each other in lending loans for raising non commercial buildings and in such a case the contention on the side of the landlord that he would be in a position to raise construction cannot be doubted.

14. In this connection P.W.1-the son of the landlord, in his deposition clearly and categorically deposed to the effect that he is carrying on his computer hardware business since 2005 and that he is having financial ability to fund such reconstruction. But that was not in any manner refuted even during cross-examination. There are safe-guards in the itself that if the landlord does not commence reconstruction within the statutory period from the date of delivery, even redelivery can be obtained by the tenant. As such, incommensurate with the view expressed by the Honourable Apex Court, I would like to decide the point to the effect that the contention on the side of the tenant that the landlord did not produce objective evidence regarding his financial capacity fails to carry conviction with this Court.

15. Regarding the age of the building is concerned, the landlords Engineer would state that the building is 90 years old, whereas, the tenants Engineer would state that it is 55 years old. Even assuming that the building is 55 years old, as per the modern trend, the business people would go for new building because attracting the customers by having new building is of paramount importance and that cannot be lose sight of. As such, I could see no mala fide intention on the part of the landlord in getting his own building demolished and reconstructed and that too, for the purpose of accommodating the business which his son is doing and the factum of his son doing business is beyond controversy.

16. The learned counsel for the tenant would submit that there is nothing to indicate in the RCOP filed by the landlord that the demised premises is required by him, so as to accommodate his sons business, for which, the learned counsel for the landlord would submit that P.W.1-the landlords son himself figured and copiously narrated and detailed that the building is required for his own purpose.

17. The learned counsel for the landlord would appropriately and convincingly advance his argument that P.W.1 being the son of the landlord is doing business in a rented premises and that he wants accommodation. Simply because the averments in the RCOP do not contain the very version as contained in the correspondences anterior to the date of filing of RCOP, that it does not mean that his intention is not a bona fide one. As such, both the Courts below took into account all these facts and arrived at a just conclusion, warranting no interference in revision.

18. It is a trite proposition of law that the revisional Court cannot analyse the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion unless there is perversity or non-application of mind on the part of the Courts below. But here both the Courts below au fait with law and au courant with facts dealt with the matter and arrived at the conclusion, warranting no interference in the revision.

19. In the result, the points are decided in favour of the respondent/landlord and as against the petitioner/tenant.

20. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would make an extempore submission that already the tenant is in receipt of work orders from the Government and it will take till the end of April 2011 for him to complete that contract work and if he is thrown away from the premises earlier to the end of April 2011, he would be put to discomfiture and exordinary difficulties.

21. I am of the view that such a representation could sympathatically be considered by this Court. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed, confirming the orders of both the Courts below. However, time for vacating the premises is granted upto the end of April 2011, subject to payment of rent regularly by the tenant and to that effect affidavit shall be filed within two weeks from this date.

22. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.