Opportunity for adducing counter evidence has to be given.

Tenant originally filed this revision, and after his death, his legal representatives have been brought on record, and they have further prosecuted the revision.

.2. Eviction was ordered by the authorities below on the ground that the building is required by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction.

.3. I heard this revision and dismissed the same as per my order dated 19. 1996. Against my decision, the matter was taken before the Honourable Supreme Court, and before the Honourable Supreme Court, a submission was made by the revision petitioners that during the pendency of the revision, the original landlord has sold the property to a third party and the subsequent sale will have material bearing in the result of the revision petition. It was also submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that the tenants came to know about the same only after the disposal of the revision. When such submission was made, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus:

.“Learned counsel states that during the pendency of the revision petition before the High Court, the respondent/landlord sold the property in dispute. According to the learned counsel, with the sale of the property, the ground on which the eviction was based automatically became non-est. Learned counsel further states that he came to know about the sale after the judgment of the High Court. In the circumstances, the petitioner may, if so advised, approach the High Court and bring the facts to the notice of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

4. After the dismissal of the S.L.P, a review application was filed by the tenants as Review Application No.37 of 1997. As per my order dated 211. 1997. I allowed the review application and directed restoration of the C.R.P. back to file. Thereafter, the purchaser wanted to get himself impleaded in the revision. Accordingly, as per order dated 21. 1998. passed in C.M.P.No. 17676 of 1997, the purchaser S.Moula Mohideen was impleaded as second respondent in the C.R.P.

5. Both the authorities below have come to the conclusion that the condition of the building is not good, and that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. That is a finding of fact which does not require any interference by this court, while exercising its revisional powers. The original landlord has also filed an under taking that he is prepared to demolish the building within the time stipulated and start reconstruction of the building.

.6. Now that the original landlord has sold the property to the second respondent herein, the question to be considered is, whether the bona fides of the original landlord will be sufficient to order eviction.

.7. Similar question came for consideration before M.Srinivasan, J., as he then wan, in an application for impleading by a purchaser. The learned Judge has held thus in S.V.Chidambara Pillai v. S.N.V.R.N.Subramaniam Chettiar and others, (1989)2 M.L.J. 254:

.“ ...The bona fide requirement of the building as contemplated under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act has to be established by letting in evidence at the time of hearing of the R.C.O.P. If before the matter is taken up for trial the landlord thinks that he cannot fight with the tenant as the matter was being prolonged for years and sells the property to third parties, it is open to the third parties who have become the owners of the property to continue the proceedings. It may be for the purchasers to establish their bona fide requirement of the premises for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction as contemplated under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act. That is a matter which has to be considered at the time when evidence is let in by both the parties in the R.C.O.P. It is open to the tenant to contend and comment during the trial that the purchasers have not proved their bona fides as required by Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act if the purchasers fail to let in evidence to that effect.”