Age and condition of the building when relevant.

G. Ramanujam, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in H.R.A. No. 2 of 1981 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent herein. The circumstances under which this revision came to be filed may be briefly stated. The first respondent herein filed an application under Section 14(1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for demolition and reconstruction of the building in the occupation of the petitioner herein. His case was that the building in question bearing Door No. 17 of 1948 stands in the north western corner of a plot of land having an extent of 29 cents and this land with the building is in the occupation of the petitioners herein, that the building and the vacant site was purchased by him for the purpose of locating an oil mill, that in pursuance of the object for which the land and the building had been purchased, necessary machinery had been purchased, that thereafter sanction of the plan for the rice-mill has been obtained and that therefore the, building in the occupation of the tenants is required for demolition and reconstruction. The said application for eviction was resisted by the petitioners on the ground : (1) that the requirement of the landlord is not 'bona fide and the filing of an earlier application for the same purpose and its dismissal would indicate that the present attempt of the landlord is not bona fide; (2) In any event the building in the occupation of the petitioners is not old and dilapidated and therefore there is no necessity for demolition and reconstruction of the, building. The Rent -Controller taking into account the filing of an earlier application for eviction on the same ground and the absence of any evidence that the building sought to be demolished is old and dilapidated requiring immediate demolition, held that the landlord has not made out a case for eviction under Section 14(1) (b) of the Act. In that view, he dismissed the eviction petition filed by the landlord. On appeal, to the appellate authority, the Sub-Court, Nagercoil the appellate authority has held that the requirement of the landlord of the premises for demolition and reconstruction for establishing an oil mill is bona fide and the fact that there are other open spaces; for erection of the oil mill is not a ground to reject the claim of the landlord for seeking the building for demolition and reconstruction, The appellate authority has also held the fact that the landlord filed an earlier application for eviction and failed does not mean that the present application could be taken as not bona fide. In that view, the appellate Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition and directed the eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved against the order of the appellate authority directing eviction, the tenants have come he-fore this Court.

2. Before me three substantial contentions have been advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. One is that there is no evidence regarding the age and condition of the building and that without such evidence the appellate authority is not justified in ordering eviction. In support of this contention the learned Counsel refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Metal ware and Company v. Bansilal Sarrna that in all cases where an application is filed under Section 14(1) (5) the age of the building is a relevant criterion and in the absence of any evidence an this matter, eviction cannot be ordered. In that case, the Supreme Court has held that "the existing condition of a building far fro in being totally irrelevant is a vital factor while considering the bona fide requirement. The age and existing condition of a building are relevant forming part of the circumstances that are to be considered while determining the bona fide requirement". But the Court has made those observations in the light of the a