The central legal point established is that the landlords' bona fide intention, the building's condition, and the landlords' financial position are key factors in granting permission for eviction under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act.

(Revision Petition filed against the judgment dated 9.1.2006 made in R.C.A No.288/2002, on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.874/1997, dated 5.7.2000 on the file of the X Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

The unsuccessful tenant before both the courts below is the revision petitioner herein. The respondents/landlords filed RCOP No.874/1997 under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18/1960 hereinafter called 'the Act') for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant from the premises bearing Door No.25, Jehangir Street, Chennai.1. The respondents have stated in the RCOP that the building is very old and is in a dilapidated condition. Therefore they want to demolish it and build a new building. The petition premises is located in the commercial area and the proposed new building would fetch far better returns. They also stated that they are men of means capable of raising sufficient funds to put up a new structure. They have also sent a letter dated 12.7.1996 offering alternative accommodation to the revision petitioner herein, but the revision petitioner has not opted to avail the offer.

2. The revision petitioner filed a counter in RCOP 874/1997 and resisted the eviction proceedings. According to the revision petitioner, the building is in good condition and as the landlords/respondents herein disconnected the water connection to the building, the tenant was forced to file RCOP No.465/1997 for restoration of water supply. In spite of the order of the Rent Controller to restore water supply, the same was not granted by the landlords. Instead, they have filed eviction petition which was not bona fide. The tenant has further pleaded that when the ground floor portion was under the occupation of M/s.Cadex Plastics (P) Ltd., without filing an eviction petition against them, there is no bona fide on the part of the landlords in filing the RCOP. Further the landlords have not filed the demolition certificate also.

3. The Rent Controller by an order dated 5.7.2000 allowed the RCOP and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 9.1.2006. Against the concurrent findings of the authorities below, the above revision petition has been filed by the tenant.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submissions and the judgments referred to by them.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlords in filing the RCOP under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act. It was filed only as a counterblast to the act of the revision petitioner/tenant in approaching the Rent Controller for obtaining an order of restoration of water supply, which was disconnected by the respondents/landlords. He further submitted that no sufficient and acceptable evidence like building plan, demolition certificate, etc., was let in by the landlords to prove their bona fide intention in demolishing the petition property. He relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions:-

(1) 1996(II) CTC 586 (Vijaya Singh etc., etc., v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal) and (2) 2006 SCCL.COM 213 (2006)I CTC 645/615 (S.Venugopal vs. A.Karruppusami & Anr.)

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords submitted that both the authorities below have considered the bona fide intention of the landlords and rendered a finding in favour of them which need not be disturbed by this court under Sec.25 of the Act. He also relied on 1996(II)CTC 586 (supra) and the following other judgments:-

(1) 1996(I) CTC 330 (Central Hameedia Stores v. Valliammal @ Rajammal; (2) 1996(II) CTC 733 (Kannan, S. v. Manoharan,P.); (3) 2000(I) CTC 287 (Akbar Ali v. Donian Rodrigo) and (4) (2004)5 SCC 241 (P.S.Pareed Kaka v. Shafee Ahmed Saheb).

7. In 1996(II)CTC 586 (supra) a Bench of five Judges of the Hon'ble Su