Susheela Bai Vs.
Kolla Ravindra @ K. Ravi  INSC 597 (23 March 2009)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1809 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.937 if
2008) Susheela Bai ...Appellant(s) Versus Kolla Ravindra (alias) K. Ravi
...Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
By an order dated
11.11.2005, XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai allowed the petition filed
by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner on the ground specified in
Section 14(i)(b) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
(for short `the Act'). He referred to the evidence of the parties and recorded
a specific finding that the landlord immediately requires the premises for
demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed
the appeal preferred by the tenant (petitioner herein) and confirmed the eviction
order passed by the Small Causes Court. However, the High Court allowed the
civil revision, set aside the order of eviction on the grounds set out in
Section 14(i)(a) of the Act and dismissed the eviction petition.
We have heard the
learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, the Small Causes Court and Rent
Control Appellate Authority, after a comprehensive evaluation of the pleadings
and evidence of the parties, recorded a concurrent finding that the tenanted
premises (building) was in a dilapidated condition and the landlord bonafide
requires the same for its demolition and reconstruction. In the impugned order,
the High Court has not found that the concurrent ...2/- -2- finding recorded
by the Small Causes Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority is perverse or
the conclusion recorded by them suffers from any patent error of law.
This being the
position, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order passed
by the Small Causes Court and upheld by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the order of eviction passed
by the Small Causes Court and upheld by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is
restored. The appellant is granted time till 31st December, 2009, to vacate the
premises in question upon filing usual undertaking in this Court within four
weeks from today. It is directed that in case the appellant fails to vacate the
premises in question within the aforesaid time, it would be open to the decree
holder to file an execution petition for delivery of possession and in case
such a petition has been already filed, an application shall be filed therein
to the effect that the appellant has not vacated the premises in question
within the time granted by this Court. In either eventuality, the Executing
Court is not required to issue any notice to the appellant. The Executing Court
will see that delivery of possession is effected within a period of fifteen
days from the date of filing of the execution petition or the application
aforementioned. In case for delivery of possession any armed force is
necessary, the same shall be deputed by the Superintendent of Police within
forty eight hours from the date requisition is received there for. It is also
directed that in case anybody else, other than the appellant, is found in
possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the premises in question.
Pages: 1 2 3