The provisions of Article 53(1)(b) of Decree No. 43525 and those of Section 31(1)(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 are not substantially different and both allow the landlord to recover possession of a building for the purpose of demolishing and reconstructing it, subject to certain conditions.

ORDER :- The applicants pray that the judgement and order of this Court dated September 18, 1975 be reviewed.

2-A. The first error pointed out by Shri Usgaocar, learned advocate for the applicant is that the ruling mentioned by me in support of the finding that the pre-conditions for the recovery of a building for the purpose of reconstruction are almost similar in the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called "the Act") and in the Decree No. 43525 and that therefore the new suit is governed by the provisions of Sec. 31 (1) (b) of "the Act" is erroneous. I agree with this contention. The ruling which I meant to quote in support is M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372. I therefore order that the words "M/s. Panchmal Narayana v. Basthi Venkatesha, AIR 1971 SC 942" be deleted from the said judgement dated September 18, 1975 and instead the words "M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372", be written.

2. The next contention is that there was no issue on the question as to whether construction of new buildings were unprofitable and that in any event the question of unprofitability of a new construction is not relevant for the purpose of finding the bona fide of a landlord desiring to recover a building for demolition and reconstruction. I am unable to agree with Shri Usgaocar that there is any error on this point. I have in the said judgement stated, "I am in agreement with Shri Shinkre that lack of funds and the unprofitability of the new building show want of bona fide on the part of the landlord and disentitles him to recover premises under Section 30 of "the Act"." Further in paragraph 8 of the judgement I have stated "The plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant have deposed to facts that in a way go to show that the new construction was not a more profitable proposition. It can be said from this evidence of plaintiff No. 2 that he did not succeed in proving that he had sufficient funds at his disposal for the construction of the building". Therefore the question of unprofitability does not require a new issue to be set out. It is an incidental question, the decision of which is relevant as it provides circumstantial evidence which enables us to determine the question of bona fide.

3. Shri Usgaocar contends that the most important point on which this review is filed is that he has not agreed that "the Act" governs the present suit. He states that the had agreed that the provisions of Section 30 (2) of "the Act" would be applicable to the present suit, but not the provisions of Section 30 (1). It may be that there was a mistake on my part in stating that the parties are substantially in agreement that the entire Section 30 of "the Act" governs the present suit. However, I am not in a position to make a correction of the judgement from the facts in my memory and to state that the parties are not substantially in agreement on the point that "the Act" and not the Decree No. 43525 governs the present suit. Besides, even if the parties were not in agreement as to the applicability of "the Act" to the present suit, the decision on merits would not be different from the one given by me, because I have, irrespective of the said admission that "the Act" was applicable, come to the conclusion that "the Act" was applicable because the pre-conditions for recovery of a building for the purpose of reconstruction are according to me almost similar in "the Act" and in the Decree No. 43525. It is true that I have not elaborated why I am of the opinion that the difference between the provisions of "the Act" and the Decree do not substantially differ. No detailed reasoning was given because I was under the impression that the parties had substantially agreed that "the Act" and the Decree contained similar provisions.

4. The relevant provision of the Decree is Article 53(1)(b). The provision of Article 53 (1) (b) enabl