Order of Court for eviction held sustainable.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the order dated 30.04.1999 in R.C.A.No.2 of 1997 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Court (Sub Court) Tirupathur, as stated therein.)

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the courts below dated 30.04.1999 in R.C.A.No.2 of 1997 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Court), Tirupathur (arising out of R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ambur) ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

2.1. The shop bearing Door No.46-A in Broad Bazar, Ambur Town belongs to Late Natesa Chettiyar. The said premises was originally let out to the Second Petitioner for doing business in puffed rice. Due to old age, his son viz., the First Petitioner is carrying on the business in the said premises and paying the monthly rent of Rs.65/-. Natesa Chettiyar filed a Petition under Section under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (in short "Act") stating that the building is aged more than 80 years and is leaking during the rainy season and seeking to reconstruct the building with R.C.C terraced roofing. Ambur Municipality has approved the plan of demolition and reconstruction and has granted approval for the plan valid from 25.09.1986 to 24.09.1987 (Ex.P.2.). After re-construction, the Landlord requires the entire building for occupation by his son for running general stores business in addition to the book stall business.

2.2. The Petitioners/Tenants resisted the eviction petition contending that the building is in good condition and that there is no bonafide requirement. According to the Petitioners, Late Natesa Chettiar required half of the building for his personal occupation and the Petitioner has also handed over the same, but instead of occupying the same, he has let it out and there is no bonafide requirement and the building is in good condition. According to the Petitioners, there are 13 shops in the name of the First Respondent and another 10 shops in the name of G.N.Sankaran and there is no need for the respondents to construct the shop and the requirement is not bonafide.

2.3. After filing of the Petition, Landlord Natesa Chettiar died and the Respondents were impleaded as legal representatives of late Natesa Chettiar. To substantiate their case, Landlords produced Exs.P.1 to P.5 and the Second Respondent examined himself as P.W.1. Ex.C.1 was also marked. The other tenant – Kamal Basha, who is in another portion was examined as P.W.2. Onbehalf of the Tenants, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined.

3. In consideration of the evidence, Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently found that the building is in a dilapidated condition, which is more than 70 years. The Courts below have concurrently found that the requirement is bonafide and the Respondents/Landlords have got sufficient means to put up new construction.

4. Assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that what is required under Section 14 (i)(b) of the Act is bonafide requirement and absolutely there is no discussion by the Appellate Authority on the bonafide requirement. Placing reliance upon 1992 (1) LW 315 [C.Shanmugam Vs.N.S.K.Chokkalingam Pillai], it was contended that there is a mandate on the Appellate Authority to assess the evidence and give independent findings. Drawing the attention of the Court to certain passages in the Order of the Appellate Authority, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the findings of the Appellate Authority are verbatim repetition and there is no independent assessment of evidence which calls for interference by the High Court under Section 25 of the Act. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance upon t