Court has power of revision u/s 25 of the Act.

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The petitioner in both these revisions is one and the same. The petitioner is a landlord within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent in each of the revisions is the tenant within the meaning of the Act. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant-respondent in C.R. P. No. 3620 of 1981 on two grounds, namely that he required the building in question for his own use and occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and on the ground of bona fide requirement for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant-respondent in C.R.P. No. 3621 of 1981 putting forth the ground under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The tenants contested the petitions for eviction. The Controller countenanced the case of the landlord and ordered eviction against the tenants. The tenants appealed and the appellate authority has chosen to reverse the orders of the Controller, allowed the appeals and has dismissed the petitions for eviction. Hence, these two revisions by the landlord. Mr. S. Navaneethakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord, would attack each one of the reasonings advanced by the appellate authority for discountenancing the case of the landlord. The appellate authority with reference to the case of the landlord against the tenant-respondent in C.R.P. No. 3620 of 1981 has taken the view that since the landlord put forth the case under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the other ground under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be advanced and the Appellate Authority declined to consider the case of the landlord under Section 10(3)(a)(i) on this reasoning. Learned Counsel for the landlord would state that this is an untenable reasoning and cannot have the support of a proper and a harmonious construction of the said provisions of the Act. I am inclined to agree, with this submission of the learned Counsel and I am expressing my reasons therefor, as hereunder.

2. Under Section 10(3)(a)(i), the landlord can get possession of the building, if he satisfies the requisite conditions. The order of eviction could have reference only to the building as it exists. But, that does not preclude the landlord from availing of the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) and getting the purpose of self-occupation served after suitably reconstructing the building on demolition. The two pleas cannot be said to be contradictory to one another. Hence, there is nothing wrong if the landlord quotes both the provisions to serve his end. One does not exclude the other. Both can go together. In Pappu Ammal v. Messrs Lab Chemicals. I had occasion to consider somewhat similar facts where the landlady filed a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act and followed it up by petitions under Section 14(1)(6) of the Act. I have opined that the two claims cannot be said to be contradictory to one another and the forums below, in that case, committed an error in taking this as a factor indicating the lack of bona fides on the part of the landlady. There is a possibility that the landlord could be desirous of accommodating himself in his own property after demolition and reconstruction of the building in question to suit his own needs and merely because the two provisions are quoted, there is no warrant to exclude the consideration of the case under one or the other on the ground that they are contradictory to one another. The case of the landlord can survive either under both or any one of the two provisions also. After all, the general law of landlord and tenant stands excluded and the Act has curtailed the right of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant except on the grounds set out therein. If there is a warrant for it, the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant under the appropriate provisions, not necessarily tying himself down to one and not th