A landlady can seek eviction of tenants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for demolition and reconstruction, even if the building is not in a dilapidated condition, provided she has a bona fide requirement for the same.

1. The tenants are the petitioners. The respondent/landlady filed R.C.O.P. 11/87 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Sankarankoil to evict the petitioners herein on the ground of wilful default and for demolition and reconstruction.

2. The respondent’s case is that the monthly rent for the premises is Rs.500/- of which Rs.350/- is to be paid every month on or before 5th of succeeding month and Rs.150/-has to be paid in the consolidated basis, once in six months. The petitioners failed to pay the rent from 30th March to 30th September, accruing to Rs.900/- at the rate of Rs.150/- p.m and failed to pay the entire rent from 9. 86 to 30.87. The building is 60 years old and the respondent wants to demolish the existing superstructure a nd put up the new building in order to augment the income.

3. The petitioners opposed the application by filing counter stating that there is no arrears at all and the agreed rent is only Rs.350/- p.m. and since the respondent’s grandson was collecting the rent, had refused to receive the rent, the rents were not paid.

4. However, during the evidence the petitioners represented that the rent had been deposited in the rent control court. After elaborately considering the evidence, the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Against the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. 14/88. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the eviction. The present revision has been filed against said order of eviction.

5. Both the authorities had relied upon Exs.A14 and A15 and found that the rent is Rs.500/- and the petitioners had been paying the rent at the rate of Rs.350/- p.m. and the remaining Rs.150/- once in six months on consolidated basis as contended by the respondent herein. The admitted case of the petitioners is that the respondent has not received the rent and hence they filed the R.C.O.P seeking permission to deposit the same. The petitioners filed R.C.O.P.12/87 seeking permission to deposit the rent only subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition. If really the respondent’s grandson had refused to receive the rent from August, 1986, then naturally the petitioners ought to have filed the petition immediately thereafter. They have not done so. They waited till the respondent files petition for eviction. Apart from that there is nothing on record to show as to how much the petitioners are depositing every month and whether the deposit is being made every month without any default. In the absence o f these materials, the conduct of the petitioners in depositing the rent cannot be taken into consideration. Hence the finding of both the authorities that the petitioners have committed wilful default is a finding of fact and as such no interference is called for by this court.

6. Even though on the ground of demolition and reconstruction several arguments have been advanced by the counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the condition of the building is the primary one to seek for eviction on this ground, and in the absence of any evidence to show that the building is old and that requires immediate demolition, the eviction ought not to have been ordered on this ground.

7. The counsel for the respondent represented that admittedly the building is 60 years old and naturally the building requires certain repairs. Taking into consideration of the situation of the building, in the heart of the town, the landlady wants to demolish the building in order to argument her income. In such case, he relied upon the judgment reported in Lakshmanan v. Kanniammal, 1995 (II) MLJ 178. Though the finding given on the ground of wilful default is sufficient to sustain the order of eviction, to complete the contention of the counsel on both sides, I think it is better to deal with this point also.

8. It is true that neither the petitioners nor the res