Bona fide requirement for eviction not established.

The tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’) is tie petitioner in this civil revision petition.

2. The respondent-landlord raised three grounds in R.C.O.P.No.95 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirunelveli for securing the eviction of the petitioner. But, this civil revision petition is concerned only with one of the abovesaid three grounds viz., demolition and reconstruction (under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act). The R.C.O.P. was dismissed on all the said three grounds. But, in the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord in R.C.A.No.22 of 1986, the said dismissal was set aside and eviction was granted on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Hence the civil revision by the tenant.

.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes the following submissions. The landlord has not proved that the building was bona fide required by him for the immediate purpose of demolition and for erecting a new building on the site in question. He particular/ draws my attention to the decision in P.Orr and Sons (P.) Limited v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd, (1991)1 S.C.C. 301 and submits that the principles laid down therein with reference to the abovesaid Sec.l4(l)(b) have not been followed at all by the appellate authority in passing the abovesaid eviction order. He also points out that Ex.A-1, the sanctioned plan obtained from the Municipal Authority for the alleged demolition and reconstruction only seeks to change part of the roof of the building, viz., the tiled portion of the roof and such a change of the roof alone cannot be demolition spoken to in the said Sec.l4(l)(b). In this connection he also brought to my notice the evidence given by P.W.I, the landlord regarding abovesaid Ex. A-1. He also relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.Krishnan v. Munuswamy, A.I.R. 1979 Mad. 50: (1978)10 Lawyer 65. He also points out that the landlord did not even make an attempt to appoint an engineer-commissioner or any other commissioner to inspect the petition-building and report as to its condition. He also points out that the petition-building is part of a larger building, containing the abovesaid tiled roof, throughout the middle of the said larger building, including the portion of the petition building and other portions and that if the said tiled roof has to be removed and replaced the landlord would not have let out those other portions afresh to several tenants, after the respective previous tenants occupying the said other portions vacated their portions, after the order of the appellate authority.The above fact has been stated in the affidavits support of C.M.P.No.3022 of 1993 in this civil revision petition and as against the many specific averments regarding the same, there is no denial at all in the counter affidavit filed therein by the landlord. In view of these subsequent events also, the bona fide requirement contemplated under Sec.l4(l)(b) has not been established.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord reiterates that the abovesaid bona fide requirement has been proved and that since even a first floor is going to be built after removing the abovesaid tiled roof over the ground floor, the present case certanily would come under the term “demolition”. He also relies on the decisions in Ramachandran v. Kasim Khaleeli, (1965)1 M.L.J. 78, S.A.Hanty v. J.V.K.Rao, (1971)2 M.L.J. 297: A.l.R: 1972 Mad. 64: 84 L.W. 523 and Man-ickam Chettiar v. Pasumponnal Achi, 1976 T.L.N.J. 256. With reference to the abovesaid subsequent event mentioned in the supporting affidavit in C.M.P.No.3022 of 1993 he submits that the abovesaid tenants to whom those abovesaid portions have been let out after the appellate authority’s order, have agreed to vacate when it is required and that some of them have already vacated.

.5. I have considered the rival submissions. No doubt, in the present case, there is the r