ORDER: Respondents 1 to 12 in this revision filed R.C.O.P.No.43 of 1989 against the revision petitioners seeking their eviction under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. On merits that petition came to be dismissed. The landlords appealed in R.C.A.No.6 of 1995 before the Appellate Authority Erode, who allowed that appeal on merits resulting in the eviction of the petitioners in this revision having come to be passed under Sec.14(1)(b) of the said Act. It is the correctness of the said order that is being challenged in this revision before this Court. Heard Mr.S.V.Jayaraman learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as Mr.R.Sekar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 12 in this revision.

2. The learned senior counsel mainly contended that the landlords have not established that the building in question is required for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction, though they have pleaded so in the petition. In the absence of proof that the building is required for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction, the Appellate Authority had completely erred in law and on facts in ordering eviction. The learned senior c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document