Petition filed in a generalised manner bad in law.

The above civil revision petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1996 rendered in R.C.A.No.15 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.10.1993 made in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 1989 by the Court of Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Krishnagiri.

2. Tracing the history of the case, what comes to be known is that the husband of the respondent herein has filed R.C.O.P.No.10 of 1989 before the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Krishnagiri as against the revision petitioners herein and another under Sections 10(2) and 14(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960) thereby praying to direct the respondents therein/the tenants to surrender possession of Door Nos.44 to 47 thus evicting the respondents therein from the building and for costs; that since the husband of the respondent herein died during the pendency of the said RCOP, the respondent was impleaded as the second petitioner therein.

3. The learned Rent Controller has conducted an enquiry into the matter wherein on behalf of the landlord/the respondent would examine herself as P.W.1 for oral evidence and would mark three documents as Exs.A.1 to A.3 for the documentary evidence. On the contrary, on behalf of the tenants/the revision petitioners herein, they would examine themselves respectively as R.Ws.1 to 3 for oral evidence with no documents marked on their side. The report of the Advocate-Commissioner was marked as Ex.C.1. Thereupon, the learned Rent Controller, having assessed the evidence placed on record in his own way, has allowed the said RCOP thereby directing the tenants therein to vacate the premises within two months from the date of that order and hand-over vacant possession to the landlord since the landlord has to demolish the said premises to construct the new building.

4. Aggrieved, the revision petitioners herein, who are the respondents 1,3 and 4 before the Rent Controller, have preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.15 of 1993 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri and the learned appellate authority, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, would ultimately dismiss the said appeal thereby confirming the order of eviction ordered by the Rent Controller. It is only testifying the validity of the said concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the petitioners have come forward to file the above civil revision petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of the civil revision petition.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/tenants would submit that the point is whether Section 14(1)(a) or 14(1)((b) which is relevant in the context of the case; that no evidence has been let in by the respondent in respect of Section 14(1)(b). Citing para No.11 of the trial Court order, the learned counsel would try to consolidate his arguments pertaining to the above provision of law. Resuming the arguments, the learned counsel would further submit that it is only for repair and not for demolition and re-construction the petition has been filed, which has not been discussed by the lower appellate Court at all. At this juncture, the learned counsel would cite a judgment delivered in VIJAY SINGH & OTHERS vs. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMAL reported in 1997-1-L.W.218 wherein the larger Bench of the Honourable Apex Court in civil appeals preferred against the judgment of this High Court rendered in Civil Revision Petition, has held:

"With the population explosion and cry for a roof in the urban areas, a situation was created where the Legislatures of different States had to enact Acts regulating the conditions on which premises in such areas are to be let out and tenants are to be evicted. By and large, there is no uniformity in the provisions applicable to different States. As such from time to time