The condition of the building is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, along with other factors such as the area where the building is situated, the nature of development that has taken place in the area, and the amenities available.

1. In all these revisions, the respondents are the owners of the petition mentioned building and the petitioners are the tenants. The respondents/landlords filed the respective petitions for eviction against all these petitioners/tenants under Section 14 (1)

(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 on the ground that the building in question is situated in a highly commercial locality, that the age of the building is more than 70 years and it has outlived its age, that the building is structurally unsound and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction and that they have decided to demolish the existing building and construct a shopping-cum-commercial complex using the latest technology, by which the building will yield very good returns, not less than five times of the present rent. With respect to the capacity to reconstruct the building it is stated by the respondents that they are possessing necessary means to carry out the same. It is also stated that they are preparing necessary plan for obtaining sanction from the concerned authorities.

.2. The respective petitioners/tenants resisted the eviction petitions mainly on the ground that the building is not in dilapidated condition, that the respondents are not having sufficient means for reconstruction and that there is no bonafide intention to demolish the petition mentioned building, and the eviction petitions have been filed only to get rid of the tenants. Engineers were appointed on the side of the landlords and also on the side of the tenants. The respective parties adduced oral evidence and filed documents in support of their cases. Before the learned Rent Controller XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the landlords produced Ex.P-1 the permission given by the Corporation to demolish the building. To establish the means, the landlords produced documents marked as Exs. P7, P8, P-19 series, P-20 and P-32 to show the deposit in the banks. To establish the availability of the properties, the landlords filed Exs. P-10 to P-14, P-21 to P-23, P-25, P-27 and P-30. The landlords also produced Ex.P-9 to prove that they are having a policy of life insurance for a sum of Rs.5,00,000. On the basis of those documents and evidence available on record, the Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the building requires demolition and reconstruction and the landlords are capable of gathering means for the purpose of reconstruction and so the intention to demolish and reconstruct the building is nothing but bonafide one. Aggrieved, the petitioners/tenants filed the respective appeals before the learned Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority/IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller, dismissed the appeals. Still aggrieved, the tenants have filed the above revisions.

.3. Mr.T.R. Mani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in C.R.P. 228 of 1995 has submitted that though the landlords have come forward with the plea that the building is old and unsound, which was specifically denied by the respondents/tenants in the counter, the authorities below have not properly appreciated as to whether the landlords have established that the building in question requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. Regarding P.W.2, the Engineer, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that he has not at all inspected the each and every shop in question, after issuing notice to the tenants and so his report without even making proper inspection cannot be relied on. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the age of the petitioners 3 and 4 in the R.C.O.Ps. had not been mentioned and so the petitions at their instance cannot be maintained and so the petitions at their instance cannot be maintained as they are minors. He has also submitted that in the petition and in the decree the description of the property has not been properly mentioned. The learned Senior C