Ground for eviction held not bonafide.

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. The petitioners herein are the tenants. The respondent herein filed H.R.C. Nos. 190, 191 and 193 to 195 of 1977 before the learned Rent Controller of the Nilgiris for eviction of the petitioners in these revisions and two others, who occupied different portions of the petition-mentioned building, on the ground that the building is old and dilapidated and it requires demolition and reconstruction. It is further alleged that the respondent herein is possessed of sufficient funds to undertake the work of demolition and reconstruction and he also obtained necessary permission from the Municipality.

2. The said petitions were resisted by the tenants on the ground that the claim of the respondent herein is not bona fide, that the allegations that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is very old are all false and that the same are alleged in order to secure higher rate of rent and even to dispose of the building.

3. All the petitions were tried jointly. The respondent herein alone was examined as P.W.1 on his side and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On the side of the petitioners herein, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined.

4. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petitions. Only three of the respondents in the Eviction Petitions preferred appeals before the learned appellate authority and they met with the same fate. Hence, these revisions.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted that it is the positive case of the respondent herein that the building is old and dilapidated and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction; but the same has not been established and both the authorities below failed to follow the principles enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and of this Court and on that ground alone, the eviction orders passed by the courts below have to be set aside.

6. That the respondent herein is possessed of sufficient means to carry out the demolition and reconstruction work is established by acceptable evidence and there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the said finding. Though it is alleged in the petitions for eviction that the respondent herein already obtained permission from the Municipality to demolish the existing building and to erect a new building, which is evident from Exs.A-6 and A-7, it is seen that the applications for such permission were made by the respondent herein only in the year 1980, before the examination of the landlord/respondent herein and the learned Rent Controller relied on the same even though they were obtained subsequent to the filing of the petition. I do not find any infirmity in the learned Rent Controller relying on the said exhibits also, But now, the main question is whether the respondent herein has established that the building is old and dilapidated and that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction, so as to warrant grant of an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1073.

7. Even in the notice Ex.A-1 issued by the respondent herein, the only ground alleged is that the building is very old and is in a dilapidated condition and the respondent herein had decided to demolish the entire building in order to erect a new building. The same allegation was made in all the petitions for eviction. It has been emphatically denied by the petitioners herein, who are the tenants, that the allegation that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is very old, is utter falsehood and the same had been deliberately made with a view to create a cause of action.

8. The only witness examined on the side of the respondent herein is the respondent himself and he has stated that the building is 80 years old and it was put up with brick and mud, that the tiled roof is also damaged and hence, he decided to demolish and put up a new construction. On the other hand, R.W.2 had categorically stated that the building is in a sound and good condition and