JUDGMENT

N.P. Singh, J.-These appeals have been filed on behalf of the tenants of premises bearing No.76, in Car Street, Thirupapuliyur in the State of Tamil Nadu. According to the Appellants, the said premises had been let out for non-residential purposes and the appellants had been paying the monthly rent regularly. The respondent, who is the landlady (hereinafter referred to as the respondent ) filed petitions before the Rent Controller for eviction of the appellants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It was alleged in the petitions aforesaid that the building in question was an old one and was situated in a very busy locality of the town where a number of buildings in and around the building in question had been demolished and shopping complex had been constructed with modern amenities, and as such the respondent also wanted to demolish the entire building in order to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary permission from municipal authorities had already been obtained. It was also claimed on behalf of the respondent that she had sufficient financial resources for construction of the new building. An undertaking was given on behalf of the respondent that the work of demolition of the building would commence within one month and would be completed before the expiry of three months from the date the said respondent recovered possession of the building. Those petitions were resisted on behalf of the appellants saying that the building was not an old one and it can stand for many more years to come. It was also denied that the respondent had sufficient financial resources to construct a new shopping complex. By a common order the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the requirement of the entire building for purpose of demolition and reconstruction by the respondent was bonafide and as such the respondent was entitled to an order of eviction of the appellants from the respective portions in their possession. Appeals filed on behalf of the appellants against the said order were dismissed by the appellate authority affirming the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. Civil revision applications filed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court were dismissed at the stage of admission itself saying that in view of the concurrent findings of the courts below in respect of the bonafide requirement of the respondent for purpose of demolition and reconstruction, there was no occasion for interference by the High Court on the civil revision petitions filed on behalf of the appellants.

2. The aforesaid orders are being questioned in these appeals on the ground that the Rent Controller could not have directed eviction merely on the ground that the respondent wanted to demolish the building in question for reconstruction of a new shopping complex; any such order could have been passed only after the respondent had satisfied the Rent Controller, that the                              requirements and conditions prescribed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act have been fulfilled. The relevant portion of Section 14 provides:

"14. Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs or for reconstruction.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of sections 12 and 13, on an application made by a landlord, the Controller shall, if he is satisfied-

(a) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated; or

(b) that the building 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, pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date.

(2) No o