Land lord held entitled to an order for eviction.

C.R.P. Nos.2064 and 2207 of 1988 arise from R.C.O.P. No.5510 of 1982. C.R.P. No.2080 of 1988 arises from R.C.O.P. No.5512 of 1982. C.R.P. No.3225 of 1988 arises from R.C.O.P. No.5511 of 1982.

2. In all the three eviction petitions filed by the landlords, there was a common ground for eviction, namely, bona fide requirement of the building for immediate demolition and reconstruction. In R.C.O.P. No.5510 of 1982, there was an additional ground, namely, that the first respondent therein had unauthorisedly sub-let the building to the 2nd respondent therein.

3. All these three eviction petitions were jointly tried, and eviction was ordered in all the petitions. The ground of sub-letting was also found in favour of the landlords in R.C.O.P. No.5510 of 1982.

4. Appeals were filed by the tenants as well as the sub- tenant before Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) and they were dismissed. Hence, the revisions. C.R.P. No.2064 of 1988 is by the tenant, and C.R.P. No.2207 of 1988 is by the subtenant in R.C.O.P. No.5510 of 1982.

5. The subject-matter in all these proceedings is the building bearing new No.126, Nainiappa Naicken Street, Madras.

6. It is averred in all the eviction petitions that the building is more than 60 years old. The ground and first floors are covered by Madras Terrace Roofing and the portion in the second floor is covered by A.C. sheet roofing. The building has been neglected without proper maintenance for several years, and the condition of the building is very poor. It is further said that the southern side roof of the first floor and the staircase leading to the second floor are supported by casuarina posts. There is every chance of the building collapsing any moment. The building is in a very dangerous condition. It is further averred that the Corporation of Madras has also issued notice to the petitioners, directing them to immediately demolish the building. The landlords have decided to demolish the entire building for the purpose of constructing a new building thereon, and, therefore, they bona fide require the petition mentioned building for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The petitioners (landlords) have also undertaken to demolish the building within a period of one month. Before institution of the proceedings, registered notice was issued to all the tenants, except the tenant in

R.C.O.P. No.5511 of 1982, the other tenants did not comply with the demand, nor did they send any reply.

7. As stated in R.C.O.P. No.5510 of 1982, there is an additional ground for eviction, i.e., unauthorised sub-letting. In the counter-statement filed by all the tenants, they dispute the right of the landlords to get eviction. According to them, the building does not require immediate demolition and reconstruction. They would say that the physical condition of the building is strong. One of the tenants has stated that by about the year 1970, the entire building was renovated, and even though the building is stated to be 60 years old, in fact, in view of the renovation, it could be construed only as 15 years old. They further said that the Municipal Corporation might have issued the notice only in collusion with the petitioners (landlords).

8. Regarding the allegation made by the landlords that certain portions of the roof are supported by casuarina posts, the tenant in R.C.O.P. No.5510 of 1982 has stated that those posts are placed only to safeguard the building from any possible damage by the neighbouring property owner, who is putting up a multi-storeyed building. The subtenant in the said R.C.O.P. would say that the casuarina posts are only a stage-managed show perpetrated by the landlords in collusion with the tenant.

9. The tenant in R.C.O.P. No.5511 of 1982 has stated that no portion of the building is support by any casuarina post, but, after the purchase of the building, the landlords decided to carry out some repairs in the second floor, and for that