IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE 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.   

Accordingly,  the 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 therefor.  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.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, March 23, 2009.