Eviction order confirmed in appeal and revision.

ORDER :- The tenant is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed on the ground that the landlord requires the building for demolition and reconstruction since it is a very old one "To revise the order of Small Cause Court. Chief Judge. Madras in H.R.A. No. 487 of 1979. and its first floor has only a tiled roof. It was averred in the petition that the building is situate in an important commercial centre and on the surroundings new buildings have been constructed. Both the Courts below have gone into the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord and allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the orders of the courts below, the tenant has preferred the above civil revision petition.

2. Mr. Habibullah Badsha. learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. submitted that the courts below have not properly considered the bona fides of the landlord in requiring the building for demolition and reconstruction. that the petition itself lacks particulars regarding the reason for demolition and reconstruction and that in any event the petition has to be dismissed since the landlord has not gone into the witness box to substantiate his bona fides in claiming the building for demolition and reconstruction. The Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the age of the building, the resources of the landlord to put up a new construction and the preparation made by the landlord in that regard. As regards the age and condition of the building, the landlord has let in two witnesses to speak about the same. They are P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 1 is no one other than the brother of the landlord, while P.W. 2 is a building contractor.

PW I has stated that the building is at least 100 years old, that there are cracks in the building that the building is vibrating due to the heavy traffic in that area, that the walls of the building are made up of brick and lime and that the first floor is roofed with tiles. PW 2 who is a building contractor has stated that the building is in a bad condition with cracks on the floor and on the walls, that the wooden fences are partially eaten away and have become hallow in certain places and that the building requires demolition and reconstruction. The learned Appellate Authority has also noticed from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that the very next building was recently pulled down and a multistoreyed building has been constructed in that place that there was a big fire accident in the adjacent building and that this present building got damaged partially due to the said fire accident. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the case, the learned Appellate Authority has held that it is necessary to pull down the building and reconstruct the same and that the landlord has proved that the building in question is old enough and it requires demolition and reconstruction.

3. Mr. Habibullah Badsha brings to my notice the decision of the supreme Court in Metalware and Co. v. Bansilal, AIR 1979 SC 1559. In that case arising out of a petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, the Supreme Court observed that apart from the factor of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to undertake the project, the court must have regard to the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and the possibility or otherwise of its being put to more profitable use after reconstruction. The Supreme Court has observed as follows- (at P. 1562).

"All these factors being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Controller on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 14 (1) (b) . ….It is therefore clear to us that the age and condition of the building would certainly be a relevant factor which will have to be taken into account while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act and the same cannot be ignored."

In paragraph 11 of its judgment, the Supreme Court has further observed as follows