Physical condition of the building is the only one requirement that has to be considered alongwith other factors.

1. C.R.P. No. 1386 of 1993 is by the tenant and C.R.P. No. 3181 of 1993 is by the landlord. They arise from the same proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 21 of 1986, on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Dindigul.

.2. Parties herein will be referred to according to their array in the rent control proceedings.

3. Landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has committed wilful default in payment of rent and the building also requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

4. Both the grounds were opposed by the tenant.

5. Rent Controller recorded evidence, both oral and documentary, and after considering them in detail he ordered eviction.

6. The matter was taken on Appeal by the tenant in R.C.A. No. 31 of 1990 on the file of Principal Sub ordinate Judge, (Appellate Authority) Dindigul. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction in so far as the finding that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction is concerned. But it was found that he is not in liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. That is how two Revision Petitions are filed, one by the landlord and the other by the tenant.

7. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that he is not pressing his Revision, namely, C.R.P. No. 3181 of 1993. Therefore the same is dismissed.

8. The point that survives of consideration is, weather in the finding of the Authorities below that the building requires demolition and reconstruction requires interference by this court.

.9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act, the condition of the building is of primary importance, and in this case, even according to the Commissioners Report, it is clear that the building is not in such condition that it requires reconstruction. The Commissioner inspected the property with the help of an Engineer. According to learned counsel, even though the building is old, and may not have any modern amentities, it is structually sound. He further contended that so far as the means of the landlord is concerned, no evidence has been let in. It is his further case that the claim of the landlord is also lacking in good faith. That argument is based on the premise that it is at the instance of P.W.2. the eviction petition itself is filed. According to him, he being a tenant, of fered sufficient funds to the landlord to have the construction or that he was prepared to take up the construction work. But without accepting that of fer, landlords have accepted the of fer of P.W.2. This, according to the learned counsel is only to provide P.W.2 accommodation after reconstruction. It is further contended that if P.W.2 is a man who has to finance the reconstruction, it shows that landlord has no means to put up the construction. Both the Authorities below concurrently found against the above contention and held that it has no basis. It further found that the claim of the landlord is bona fide.

10. Learned counsel so submitted that some of the decisions relied on by the Authorities below were declared to be not good law by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the basis of the finding also goes.

11. I will consider these submissions in seriatum.

.12. The Commissioner who prepared a Report with the help of an Engineer, has given a vivid picture of the building. Of course, he does not give a certificate that the building is dilapidated, that but it is seen that the building is more than 50 years old having no modern amentities. The entire flooring is damaged and some of the walls have also cracks. Even some portions of the ro of and rafters are damaged according to the Commissioner. The argument of learned counsel is that these short comings in the building are but natural taking into consideration the age. But the seam do not affect the structural strength of the building which, according to him, is one of the main criter