Eviction petition is not maintainable when there is no competent landlord to receive rent.

Tenant is the revision petitioner in each revision petition. These civil revision petitions arise against the order dated 25.10.2004 and 26.10.2004 in R.C.A.Nos.4, 6, 10, 11, 12 of 2003 and 4 of 2004 by the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, which themselves were preferred against the order dated 21.12.2001 and 22.9.2003 passed in R.C.O.P.Nos.24, 35, 28, 30, 42, 45 of 1999 by the Principal District Munsif, Bhavani.

2. Admittedly, one Lulla, who is now no mom, was the landlord and it seems that he expired in or around, 1988. The present respondent claiming to be the Power of Attorney Agent of the deceased landlord, after filing the document of Power of Attorney, has filed the eviction petitions on the ground of owner's occupation and bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction. He also claimed to be one of the legal representatives of the deceased. Be­ living that he is one of the legal representatives, the petitions become maintainable since it was also held in R. Perianne Asari and another v. Jayakumar, (1997) 1 L.W.727, that co-owner can maintain, petition on behalf of other co-owners if objection is not raised by the tenant in lower Courts. Without going into the objections, assuming that the petitions are maintainable, let us now go to the, question of bona fide requirement for owner's occupation as well as demolition and reconstruction.

3. Before ever the bona fides of demolition and reconstruction is analysed, it is to be mentioned that both the grounds of requirement for owner's occupation as well as demolition and reconstruction may not be simultaneously main­tainable. Those grounds may be raised as al­ternative to each other. But both cannot sur­vive simultaneously. It is so because one. Is destructive of the other. Before ever demoli­tion is made if owner is to utilise, then demolition becomes frivolous. Similarly, if demolition is made, owner's occupation can be claimed only upon reconstruction, which is a prospective chance of existence. No claim could be based upon a prospective chance of existence of corpus. It is in that way, one is destructive of the other. It was so held in K.A.M.A.K. Nataraja Nadar and sons v. R. Kannan, (2005) 4 M.L.J.222:(2005) 5 C.T.C. 537.

4. However, now let us go into the question of bona fide requirement of demolition and reconstruction. Even though the landlord has cited the following decisions reported in Vijay Singh v. vijayalakskmi Ammal, (1996) 2 C.T.C. 586: R. Perianne Asari and another v. Jayakmmar, (1997) 1 L.W. 727; S. Namagiri Lakshmi v. Pravin Harilal Mehta and others, (1998) 1 C.T.C. 595. Ultimately, we are guided, by the Division Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Shakeelur Rahman v. Syed Mehdi lspahani, (2002) 4 C.T.C.753, wherein it was held as follows:

"Age and condition of. building sought to be demolished are relevant factors to test bona fides of landlord but they are not determinative of bona fide requirement; Landlord could seek eviction on ground of demolition and reconstruction to construct new building for which necessary permission has been obtained and sufficient financial resources were available with landlord as then the bona fide requirement would be established.”

5. But in the given circum stances, there is no plan filed for reconstruction and there is also no evidence, indicating the financial resources available with the present respondent. There is also no Engineer's report to show that the building is dilapidated and in a condition endangering human occupation. In this view of the matter, the requirement oft he building for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide.

6. Regarding owner's occupation also, there is no bona fide reasons stated nor was it discussed in the judgments of the rent control appeals. I have also perused the rent control original petitions. Para. 11 of rent control petitions states that eviction is sought for under Secs.14(1) and 10(3) of Rent Control Act and no substantial reason has been assigned for owner's