Requirement whether bonafide, facts to be considered.

The landlord who succeeded before the Rent Controller and failed before the appellate authority has filed the above revision petition. The petitioner/ landlord filed apetition in

R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum- District Munsif of Periyakulam under Secs. 14(1)(b) and 14(2)(b)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 23 of 1973 on the ground that the building is more than 60 years old and she has decided to demolish the entire building, namely, Door Nos.98, 99 and 100, 18th Road, Periyakulam. She has also stated that she was taking steps to get licence and plan from the municipality for the proposed demolition and reconstruction and she has sufficient means to carry out the demolition and reconstruction. In compliance with Sec. 14(2) of the Act she gave undertaking to commence the demolition not later than one month and complete it within three months. In spite of the notices the tenant did not vacate the building. So, she filed the said petition. The tenant filed a counter stating that he had been running his saloon for the past more than 30 years and if he is evicted from the building there is no other building to run his profession and thereby he would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. He has denied the fact that the building is 60 years old. He has further stated that it is a pucca building and there is no need to demolish the entire structure and to erect a new building. At the instance of the tenant, a Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner after due inspection of the building filed his report, which was marked as Ex.C-1. In his report, the advocate- Commissioner has stated that the building has some cracks. The landlord examined herself as P.W. 1 and the tenant examined himself as R.W. 1. The Rent Controller after due consideration of the oral documentary evidence found that the intention of the landlord to demolish the building in question is a bona fide one and on that basis the Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction. Aggrieved against this, the tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 13 of 1990 on the file of the appellate authority, Sub Judge, Periyakulam. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller only on the basis of the judgment reported in M/s.P.Orr and Sons (P) Limited v. M/s.Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, (1990)2 L.W. 547. The appellate authority held that the building in question is not in dilapidated or dangerous condition and so the petition filed under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act cannot be ordered. On that ground, the appellate authority allowed the appeal. Against that judgment the present revision petition is filed by the landlord.

.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has proceeded with the case applying incorrect test that the petition under Sec. 14(1)(b) can be ordered only on the ground that the building should be in a dilapidated or dangerous condition. He further submitted that even in the decision rendered in M/s.P. Orr and Sons (P) Limited v. M/s.Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, (1990)2 L. W. 547, the age and condition of the build- ing is one of the criteria to be taken while disposing of the petition filed under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited decisions Vijay Singh, etc. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1996)2 C.T.C. 586 and S.Thangaswamy v. R.Vinayakamurthy, (1996)2 C.T.C. 105.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are three portions in the same building bearing Door Nos.98-99 and 100, the premises bearing Door Nos.98 and 99 are vacant. The premises bearing Door No. 100 is the subject matter in the above revision petition. The landlord wants to demolish all the three portions and construct a building in the said vacant land. In support of the same, the landlord filed two documents, namely, Exs.P-4 and P-5 under w