For ascertaining bonafide requirement of landlord every other aspects has also to be considered.

.1. The petitioners/landlords who failed in their attempt to get the order of eviction before the authorities below, have filed the above revisions.

2. There are six portions in the building in question and five tenants are occupying the said building in the respective portions. According to the petitioners, on 310. 1984, the then Prime Minister of India was assassinated at New Delhi and an unprecedented violence in the city of Coimbatore had sparked off. The building belonging to the petitioners which is in the occupation of the tenants was also attacked by goondas who set fire to the building, due to which the building suffered extensive damage. On the basis that the building had suffered substantial damage which is permanent in nature and it is unfit for the purpose of occupation and also on the ground that the petitioners proposed to erect a new modern building in the site, filed R.C.O.P.Nos.366 to 391 of 1984 to the effect that they require the building bona fide for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. It is stated specifically that the petitioners have capacity to construct such a building. They have also given undertaking which is required under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act herein after called as the Act. But, we are concerned in these revisions only with respect to R.C.O.P.Nos.367, 368 and 370 of 1984, filed on the file of the learned Rent controller, Coimbatore. The respective tenants in these R.C.O.Ps. filed counter disputing the bona fide intention of the landlords. They have also denied the fact that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction immediately. According to them, the building is in good condition and there is no necessity to demolish and reconstruct the same. It is also their case that there are other tenants also and without evicting them, the building in question cannot be demolished and reconstructed. An advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the Rent Controller and he visited the building before the same was repaired by the tenants and also after repairing the building, and he filed his report. The Rent Controller after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved against the same, the landlords filed appeals in R.C.A.Nos. 63 to 65 of 1992 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority, Coimbatore. The appellate authority also rejected the appeals holding that the building in question does not require immediate demolition and reconstruction. Still aggrieved, the petitioners/landlords have filed the above revisions.

.3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/landlords has submitted that the petitioners want to erect modern building in the site in question taking into consideration the fact that the building had suffered substantial damage which is permanent in nature and it is unfit for the purpose of occupation. He has also relied on the commissioners report in support of his submissions regarding the substantial damage to the building. The learned senior counsel while submitting about the means of the petitioners to demolish and reconstruct the building has stated that regarding the same, there is no dispute about the capacity of the petitioners to meet the expenses. With regard to the rejection of the petitioners application for not producing the sanctioned plan, he has submitted that the production of sanctioned plan is not absolutely necessary to find out the bona fide intention of the petitioners, if/they had established the same otherwise.

4. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, to sustain the orders of the authorities below has submitted that since the respondents/tenants have established before the authorities below that the building is required for them for occupation and so the authorities below are correct in holding that the petitioners have not established that the buildin