Court in revision considered the requirement of landlady and held bonafide.

The civil revision petition has been filed by the landlady against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority, Vellore, in R.C.A.No.63 of 1990, reversing the order passed by the District Munsif/Rent Controller, Gudiyatham, in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 1987.

2. The petitioner/landlady filed a petition for eviction against the respondent/tenant under Sec. 14( 1 )(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent is a tenant under the petitioner/landlady on a monthly rent of Rs.125, which was originally leased out to the father of the tenant who was doing hardware business. After his death the respondent/tenant is continuing as a tenant doing the same business of hardware. According to the landlady, the demised property is more than a century old and it is in a dilapidated condition and therefore, it requires immediate demolition. It is further stated by the landlady that income from the building is very negligible and since the building is 100 years old, the landlady decided to demolish the same and reconstruct a now building in order to augment more income. The landlady was already obtained necessary approval from the, appropriate authorities for the purpose of reconstruction of the building. She has also obtained necessary planning permission for the said purpose. The landlady has also gave an undertaking to reconstruct the building after demolition within the stipulated period as provided under the Act.

3. The tenant resisted the petition. According to him, the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. He has also denied that the building is more than a century old and it is in a dilapidated condition. The landlady has no wherewithal to demolish and reconstruct the building. The tenant has also denied that the landlady has obtained necessary approval from the authorities concerned. The landlady has not furnished the necessary undertaking as contemplated under the Act and that the undertaking given by her is not in accordance with the rule of law and hence invalid. The petition has been filed only to serve oblique purpose of the landlady. The landlady has no money to do the alleged construction.

4. Before the Rent Controller, the landlady filed Ex.A-1 dated 110. 1986, which is the plan submitted by her for construction. The tenant filed Exs.B-land B-2. The landlady examined herself as P.W.I and one Kannan was examined as R.W.I on the side of the tenant. The Rent Controller, on a consideration of the materials placed before him, both oral and documentary, specifically held that the building is in a dilapidated condition and that the requirement of the landlady to demolish the building and to reconstruct in order to augment more income is bone fide. He has also relied on the evidence placed before him in order to prove that the building is old and in a dilapidated condition and that it is more than a century old. The Rent Controller has further referred to the means to demolish and reconstruct a new building in the said site.

5. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant preferred R.C.A.No.63 of 1990 before the Principal Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority, Vellore, who interfered with the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved against the same, the landlady has filed the above civil revision petition.

6.I have heard the arguments of Mr.N.Vanchinathan for the petitioner/landlady and Mr.L.Mohan for the respondent/tenant. I have gone through the entire pleadings and also the evidence both oral and documentary, besides the orders impugned in this revision. In my opinion, the order of the Appellate Authority reversing the well considered order of the Rent Controller, is contrary to law and the same Has been passed on an erroneous appreciation of the evidence. On a careful reading of the pleading available and the evidence tendered, the Appellate Authority can o