Building need not be dangerous for human habitation nor it should be on the verge of collapsing.

In all these revision petitions, tenants are the revision petitioners.

2. Landlords sought eviction of tenants on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. According to landlords the building is nearly 70 years old and is in bad condition. There are several cracks all over the building in several places. Plastering are worn out and fell as powder and the building is in ruined condition. The superstructure is constructed with brick in lime and plastered in lime and country wood alone is used for wood works. Building is made of different types of roofings such as Madras terrace. Bengal terrace and A.C. sheet roofing, and it is impossible to maintain the building after repairing or by patch works here and there. It is the further case of landlords that they have got sufficient means and resources to carry out the demolition and reconstruction work. If the building project is completed, the same is beneficial and profitable to both landlord and tenants. After reconstruction, petitioners/landlords want to utilise major portion for their own use and also willing to accommodate some of the tenants for which also provisions are made in the reconstructed building. But they will have to provide rent at the market rate. Landlords requested the tenants of the building to vacate. But since they did not vacate, notice was issued requiring them to vacate the premises. Tenants sent reply refusing to vacate the premises and also disputed the claim of landlords.

3. It is also said that landlords have applied to the local authorities for getting licence and permission is sought for demolition and reconstruction of the building. The statutory undertaking is also given by the landlords.

4. In the various objections raised by the tenants, they disputed the age of the building. According to them, the building is in sound state and do not require reconstruction. They also challenge the means of landlord to put up new construction. They also doubted the bona fides of landlord in not producing the licence for reconstruction.

5. Rent Controller took oral and documentary evidence and on the side of landlords P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. P.W.1 is the third petitioner and P.W.2 is Engineer who prepared the report. On the side of tenants, Engineer who prepared the report alone was examined and none of the tenants entered the box.

6. After evaluating entire evidence, trial court held that landlords have not proved the ingredients of Sec.14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and dismissed all the petitions. Rent Controller held that landlords have not filed licence. It was also of the view that the statement in the petitions that the building is in bad condition is not correct and it gave meaning to bad condition as evil, immoral and dishonesty. Rent Controller held that the building cannot be said as dilapidated. Rent Controller also held that there is lack of bona fides in landlords in view of the fact that they have moved application for fixation of fair rent in the meanwhile. The result of all these discussion was dismissal of eviction petitions on the ground that the claim is not bona fide.

7. Against the said order, landlords preferred appeals before appellate authority and also moved applications to adduce additional evidence. Before appellate authority, plan and licence issued by local authority was also filed. Appellate authority accepted the same as additional evidence and after reappreciating entire evidence held that the claim of landlords is bona fide. Eviction was ordered. It held that for the purpose of reconstruction, building need not be in dilapidated condition or dangerous for human habitation. It further held that means of landlord have been proved and even tenants have no case that landlords got an oblique motive to get rid of the tenants. It also held that the application for fixation of fair rent cannot be said as evidence of bad faith. It only shows that landlor