JUDGMENT :

T. Kochu Thommen, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal by a tenant arises from the judgment of the Madras High Court in CRP No. 3064 of 1989 dismissing the appellant's petition challenging the order of the appellate authority in RCA No. 108 of 1989 whereby the order of the eviction made against the appellant by the Rent Controller in RCOP No. 2083 of 1986 was confirmed.

3. The respondent-landlord filed petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground specified under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Ndu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The landlord contended :-

"The petitioner company as the owner of the premises had conceived the idea of putting the said premises to better use consistent with the locational advantages which is enjoyed by the property. The building which now exists on the premises is admittedly more than 100 years old and is an old structure which is liable to crumble on its own at any time. The present structure apart from being old, is not also in a manner which is consistent with the area and the general nature of buildings in the adjoining locality. Anna Salai in Madras is admittedly one of the prime locations from business point of view and land in this area is scarce. It is, therefore, not only in the interest of the petitioner but also in general public interest that such a location should be put to the best use. The petitioner as the owner of the property is entitled to have the property put to the bestpossible use".

4. Denying the allegation regarding the condition of the building, the tenant stated :-

"..... the allegation in para 4 that the building 'is an old structure which is liable to crumble on its own at any time' is palpably false to the knowledge of the petitioner themselves and is backed up by "Engineering calculations furnished by them earlier. On earlier occasions the petitioner filed HRC No. 2837 of 1978 under Section 4 of Act 18 of 1960 and averred in para 4 .... the building is a pucca structure built up with first class materials. Though the building is an old one there cannot be any doubt about its strength and durability and the accommodation that is available to the Respondent is very spacious and convenient'. Thiru CR Narayana Rao, Architect, Engineer (and consultant) who had been engaged by the Petitioners earlier to inspect the petition property and submit his Valuation report had by his Report dated 6.11.1983 at para 5 stated 'The age of the building is about 106 years as on date of valuation (24.3.1982). Though the age is 106 years the building is structurally sound'. Again the Petitioners have stated in their petition HRC No. 2450 of 1982 filed against the Respondents that 'Though the building is an old one there cannot be any doubt about its strength, structure and durability .....'. The averments of the petitioner made earlier would falsify the present claim and there is no need or urgency to invoke the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act 18 of 1960 and as amended subsequently and it is a clear abuse of the process of Court and lacks in bonafides".

On the basis of these pleadings and the evidence on record, particularly the admissions made on behalf of the landlord in earlier proceedings in HRC No. 2837 of 1978 and HRC No. 2450 of 1982, the statutory authorities concurrently found that the condition of the building was not unsound, as pleaded by the landlord, but it was, on the other hand, structurally safe and sound. Though a hundred and more years of age, there was no doubt about its strength or durability. However, they held that the condition of the building as such was not decisive in deciding the question whether the building was bonafide required by the landlord in terms of section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Confirming the findings of the authorities and rejecting the objections of the tenant, the High Court held that, though the building was structurally sound, the landlord required it for a legitima