Demolition of the building not required.

The tenants are the petitioners in both the revisions. The respondent/landlady instituted

R.C.O.P. Nos.16 and 17 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller/ District Munsif, Arni, for eviction of the tenants under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The tenants resisted the eviction petitions contending inter alia, that the landlady is not the owner of the superstructure and that the applications for demolition and reconstruction under Sec.l4 (l)(b) of the Act are not maintainable. They also resisted the applications contending that the tenancy premises is in good state of repairs, that the landlady is not possessed of funds to put up construction, that the petitions are devoid of merits and lacks bona fides and that therefore, there is no reason to order eviction. The learned Rent Controller by a common order dated 28. 1986 dismissed the eviction petitions. Being aggrieved, the landlady preferred R.C.A. Nos.3 and 8 of 1987 before the Appellate Authority/ Subordinate Judge, Arni. The learned Appellate Authority by a common judgment dated 20.10.1987, allowed the appeals filed by the landlady and set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller. Being aggrieved, the tenants have preferred the present revisions for the various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of revisions.

2. I have heard Mr.E.Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondent/ landlady.

3. According to Mr.E.Padmanabhan the Appellate Authority has acted illegally in ordering eviction under Sec.14( 1 )(b) of the Act when no case has been made out for the applications being ordered under the said section. It is contended that the landlady has not let in any evidence by examining a qualified engineer or commissioner to show that the building is in a dilapidated condition and that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction and in the absence of such material, the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside by this Court. It is further contended that the landlady has no funds to commence and complete the construction as prayed for and that the application for sanction of the building plan has been applied during the year 1981 and that the eviction petition has been filed only during 1984, which clearly demonstrates the incapacity of the landlandy and her inability to undertake the construction proposed. It is then contended that with the consent of the landlady, the tenants have effected repairs and keep the building in good state of repairs consequent to the recent pulling down of certain portions of the building by the Public Works Department authorities and in the nature of the building that exists, the Appellate Authority ought to have rejected the case of the landlady and should have held that the building does not require demolition and reconstruction.

4. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondent/ landlady would support the order of the Appellate Authority. He would contend that none of the grounds raised by the tenants merit any consideration or acceptance and that the Appellate Authority considering the claim of the landlady and the bona fide nature of her claim, has rightly ordered eviction and therefore, on the facts of the case, no interference is called for by this Court. He submitted that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is legal, sound and is liable to be confirmed by this Court.

5. I have been taken through the entire pleadings and the documents filed by both parties and also the evidence let in. I have carefully gone through the order of the Appellate Authority also. In my opinion, the Appellate Authority has carefully considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly ordered eviction. While ordering eviction, the Appellate Authority has also considered the evidence tendered, both oral and documentary in its