Meaning of the expression "Bonafide regarding building for demolition.

R. Sengottuvelan, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Bharat Trading Company through one of its Partners K. Palanimalayan, to evict the tenants in respect of the petition mentioned premises hearing Door Nos. 40 and 40-A, North Veli Street, Madurai in which they are conducting a business in automobile spare parts. Originally the landlord, the respondent herein, filed an application in R.C.O.P. No. 373 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the Rent 'Controller and the District Munsif, Madurai Town for the eviction of the tenants on the ground that the landlord required the premises for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The case of the landlord before the Rent Controller is that the petition-mentioned building is old and that he intended to demolish the old construction and proposed to erect a new building. The building is situate in an important locality. He requires the building bona fide for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and he has also given the necessary statutory undertaking regarding the demolition as per the provisions laid down in the Act. On the other hand the tenants contended before ibe Rent Controller that the premises to a pucca building and there is no need to demolish the same because the condition of the building is good. The tenants paid an advance of Rs. 2,330 to the vendor of the landlord and the same will have to be credited to the account of the tenants. It is also the case of the tenants that from the inception of the building they have maintained the same at their cost and that in 1952 they put up two rooms in the upstairs to the knowledge of the predecessor-in-title of the landlord measuring 23%' X. 10%' and that construction is a terraced one and that the latrine which was in the backyard has been shifted to the third room of the building at an expense of Rs. 1,845. It is also the case of the tenants that these constructions were made with the permission of the erstwhile landlord. The plea of the tenants is that after the purchase of the petition-mentioned building by the present landlord he demanded a higher rent and on the refusal of the tenant to pay such higher rent, the landlord filed the rent control petition to evict the tenants somehow. The learned Rent Controller after examining the oral and documentary evidence let in this case came to the conclusion that the landlord had not established that the premises is old and dilapidated and that the claim of the landlord for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide and disinjissed the rent control petition. As against the orders of the Rent Controller the landlord filed an appeal in C.M. A. No. 200 of 1978 on the file of the appellate authority and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai and the appellate authority came to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to show that the building is old. The learned appellate authority observed that even if the building is not old as observed by the Rent Controller, from the said facts alone, it cannot be concluded that the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide since the landlord had proved his means to undertake such reconstruction. The learned appellate authority also observed that the motive of the landlord is quite immaterial if the landlord required the building for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The appellate Court also held that in view of the undertaking given by the landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, if the landlord fails to demolish the building within the prescribed time the tenants can seek the recovery of possession under Section 16 of Act and allowed the appeal and ordered the action of the tenants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. As against the said order of the appellate authority this civil revision petition has been filed by the ten