The landlord's undertaking in his evidence to demolish and reconstruct the building immediately was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and a single petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act was maintainable even though the premises consisted of two buildings with different door numbers, as they were subject to a single lease and were in common enjoyment of the tenants.

1. The Respondents 1, 2 and 4 in RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tindivanam, who failed before both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The Landlord filed RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tindivanam, against the petitioners herein and others for eviction under Sections 10(2)(ii)(b) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the case of the landlord in RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 is as follows;-The petition mentioned premises consisting of two items belongs to the respondent herein and it was leased out to one Ravanappa Naidu, 40 years prior to the filing of the RCOP. The said tenant, Ravanappa Naidu, died 15 years prior to the filing of the petition and after his death, the respondents 1 to 4 in the RCOP., who are the heirs of Ravanappa Naidu continued as tenants of the deceased Ellusami Chettiar, the landlord, in respect of the demised premises. The monthly rent for both the portions of the building is Rs.12/-. Both the items of the demised premises constitute one building having two door numbers. Both the portions are thatched houses and they are very old. The landlord requires the building for demolition of the thatched houses and for reconstruction. The landlord has obtained the necessary sanction from the Municipality for reconstructing the building after demolishing the thatched portions. The landlords requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. The first respondent in the RCOP. resisted the application for eviction contending as follows: Both the portions having two door numbers and in good condition. The landlords requirement for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide.

2. The Rent Controller, after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, found that the landlords requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and consequently allowed RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 and ordered eviction. As against the order of eviction, passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioners herein along with the third respondent herein filed an appeal, RCA. No. 31 of 1975 before the Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Tindivanam). The Appellate Authority by its order dated 30-4-1987 confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the RCA.

3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Authorities below, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for the petitioners raised three contentions in the Civil Revision Petition. In the first place, the learned Counsel contended that Section 14(2)(b) of Act 18 of 1960 says that no order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act shall be passed unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building shall be substantially commenced by him not later than one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building or before the expiry of such further period as the Rent Controller may, for reasons, to be recorded in writing, allow and such an undertaking contemplated in Section 14(2)(b) of the Act was not given by the landlord in this case before the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction, In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decision reported in Alamelu v. Visalakshi (1978) II MLJ 171. The learned Counsel contended that no doubt in this case, the landlord in his evidence as P.W.1 has given an undertaking that if the possession of the demised premises was given to him, he undertakes to demolish and reconstruct the building immediately. But such an undertaking given in the course of evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient and it will not satisf