1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/landlady sought his eviction on the grounds of acts of waste, different user and demolition and reconstruction. Both the authorities below found against the landlady with regard to the first two grounds, namely, acts of waste and different user. However, with regard to demolition and reconstruction, the Rent Controller held that the respondent/landlady had not made out a case. The Appellate Authority differed and found that a case under Section 14 (l) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been made out and ordered.

2. Beforethe Rent Controller the landlady filed a plan only for change of roof and the Rent Contoller found that no case under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act could be spelt out from the plan produced before him. Before the Appellate Authority the landlady sought to file a plan obtained from the Municipal Authorities for demolition and reconstruction. This application for reception of the plan as additional evidence was rejected by the Appellate Authority, but on the materials already on record, the Appellate Authority found that the building