Findings rendered based on no evidence.

In all these revisions arising under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, landlords are the revision petitioners.

2. Except in C.R.P. No.2677 of 1989, the findings of the authorities below are concurrent, against the landlords. In C.R.P. No.2677 of 1989, Rent Controller found that the claim of the landlords is bona fide and that they require the building for their own occupation. When the matter was taken in appeal, the appellate authority, in view of its judgment in the appeals which are the subject-matter of revision in C.R.P. Nos.2674, 2675 and 2676 of 1969, allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim. Hence, the revision petitions by the landlords.

3. In all these cases, a common question arises, i.e., whether the building is required bona fide, for the own occupation of the landlords. Even though separate eviction petitions have been filed, tenants are in occupation of portions of the same structure having single room tenements, for residential purpose.

4. It is the cause of the landlords that they have no other building of their own, and in the site in which the schedule buildings are situated, they are going to put up a new construction for their residence. It is their case that the condition of the building is also seen that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The averment in all the petitions are similar. It is said that they are not having any residential premises of their own.

5. The counter statements are also similar, i.e., the tenants dispute the claim of the landlords.

6. Originally, an eviction petition was filed against one Krishnaji as R.C.O.P. No. 168 of 1981. That application was filed for the same reason. But the same could not be prosecuted since the tenant, died and no steps were taken to implead the legal heirs. Therefore, that petition was dismissed as stated. Subsequently, R.C.O.P. No.121 of 1985 was filed impleading his wife as the tenant. It is against that decision, C.R.P. No.2677 of 1989 arises.

.7. I have already said that the decisions in the three revision petitions are concurrent, and following that decision the Rent Controller’s order of eviction was set aside in appeal. Even though the findings in C.R.P. No.2677 of 1989 are not concurrent, the findings in other cases will have to follow in that revision also, since the subject-matter of the same is also part of the same structure.

8. I am well aware that being a concurrent finding, this Court should be reluctant in interfering with the finding of fact. The question is, whether the building is required bona fide for the own occupation of the landlords or not. It is held as a finding of fact. Unless patent illegality or irregularity or impropriety is shown, law is that the revisional court shall not interfere with those findings. But, in this case, I feel that a patent illegality has been committed and, therefore, interference is called for. I will state the reasons one by one.

9. In C.R.P. No.2674 of 1989, the tenant is one Karuppanna Mudaliar. Against him, there way an earlier proceeding as H.R.C. No.225 of 1979. That was dismissed. One of the reasons mentioned by the authorities below for rejecting the landlords’ claim is that the decision in H.R.C. No.225 of 1979 binds this case also, and the application is barred under Sec. 19 of the Rent Control Act (on the principle of res judicata). Secondly, it is found that the landlord has got a building and, therefore, the present claim is lacking in good faith. Thirdly, eviction was denied on the ground that even though the landlord obtained plan and licence, the same were not renewed from time to time. Fourthly, the condition of the building was not proved to be bad. These are the main grounds on which all the eviction petitions were dismissed.

10. On going through the evidence in this case, for the purpose of verifying whether the decisions of the authorities below are in any way illegal, irregular or improper, I find that none of those cont