ORDER: Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.1509 of 1993 on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Madras is the revision petitioner herein.

2. Landlord filed eviction petition on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. According to landlord, the building is more than 80 years old and situated in one of the most important places of Madras. He wanted to put up a shopping complex in Door Nos.788 and 789 with modern facilities and to augment his income. He averred that he got financial capacity to put up new construction and also taken permission from local authorities to demolish the structure. Statutory undertaking is also given. According to landlord. the claim is bona fide.

3. As against the said contention petitioner herein disputed the genuineness of the claim. According to petitioner, landlord himself moved an application for fixation of fair rent in respect of very same premises and obtained an order getting enhancement of rent. That shows the lack of good faith in filing the present application. It is further submitted that when landlord wanted to demolish Door Nos.788 and 789, no evidence have been let in to show what steps he had taken to evict the tenant in Door No.788. It is further submitted that he has also obtained Engineer’s report and R.W.2 has been examined to substantiate the report filed by him. Courts below have not discussed the evidence of R.W.2 and material piece of evidence was omitted to be considered. Counsel also submitted that the building only requires repair and not demolition and the claim is not bona fide.

4. On the above pleadings, parties went on trial. Before the Rent Controller, Exs.P-1 to P17 were marked on the side of petitioner and Exs.R-1 to R-10 were marked. Ex.P-17 and R-1 are reports of the Engineer. A Commissioner was deputed to inspect the building and he also filed report Ex.C-1 oral evidence consist of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2. After evaluating entire evidence, Rent Controller held that the claim of landlord is bona fide. Rent Controller held that landlord has purchased the building in an auction in the year 1940, but during that time the building was in existence. Evidence of P.W.2 was also relied on to hold that the building might have been 70 years old. P.W.2 has said that on the top of the building. the date of construction of the building is also noted as 1926.

5. Rent controller further held on the basis of Ex.C-1, that the building is not in good condition and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. Regarding financial capacity of the landlord, Rent Controller discussed various documents filed by landlord and held that landlord is in very good financial position to put up construction. Landlord has also obtained plan and licence for putting up construction as evidenced by Exs.P-4 and P-5. Licence was also obtained is clear from Ex.P-7. Trial court further held that in regard to Door No.788 landlord initiated another Rent Control proceedings as R.C.O.P.No.1510 of 1993 and on receipt of summons tenant therein vacated the premises. Landlord also obtained possession on the same. The claim was found to be bona fide and tenant was directed to vacate the premises.

6. Against the said finding tenant filed R.C.A.No.1280 of 1996 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority also did not find any reason to take a different conclusion and all the findings of Rent Controller was confirmed. The appeal was dismissed. The concurrent findings of authorities below are challenged in this revision petition

7. Since caveat was entered by respondent, I heard the revision at the admission stage itself.

8. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that how to prove the bona fides of claim is declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1997)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 98: (1996)6 S.C.C. 475 and the same was not taken into consideration by the authorities below and therefore this Court will be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document