The condition of the building, the landlord's bona fides, financial capacity, and the tenant's default in rent payment are crucial factors in determining eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

1. Landlord in R.C.O.P. No.393 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Madurai, is the revision petitioner.

.2. Eviction was sought against the tenant on the ground that he has defaulted in paying rent at the rate of Rs.350 per mensem from the month of June, 1981 and the default continued even on the date of petition. It was further said that the premises is very old, i.e., 70 years old, and the front portion of the building is fairly in good condition, but the rest of the building has developed cracks, and the rear portion of the building is in a dangerous position and is likely to fall down at any time. It was further said that the building has to be demolished and reconstructed, and for such purposes, the landlord has got means. The landlord is in a position to start the reconstruction work within a month from the date of eviction.

3. A counter-statement was filed by the tenant wherein he disputed both the claims. He said that he has not entered into a rental arrangement with the petitioner. The property belonged to one Seethalakshmi Ammal, and the same was taken on lease by one Ramadoss, on behalf of a partnership company. Seethalakshmi Ammal received an advance of Rs.1, 400 on 10. 1967, and a stamped receipt was also given by her. The suit property was taken on lease for doing wholesale business in potatoes, onion, garlic, etc. Even during the lie time of Seethalakshmi Ammal, her son Sundaram was collecting the rent. The partnership firm was dissolved and the tenant’s father was conducting the wholesale commission business. All payments were entered in a notebook retained by him and they are also reflected in the account-books maintained by the respondent. It has been assessed to income-tax and other authorities. The account books are being maintained in the usual course of business. It is said that the rent for the month of May, 1981 was paid by him and necessary entry was made in the pocket notebook. Subsequently, the rent for June, 1981 had been paid on 27. 1981 and entered in the rent notebook as usual. Subsequent rents for July the December, 1981 were paid as and when they became due and necessary entries were made in the notebook. The notebook was handed over to the petitioner’s father on 12. 1982 when the rent for January, 1982 was paid to the petitioner’s father. Petitioner’s father wanted the said notebook, stating that he will return it after verifying the payments. But, he did not return it. It is said that the rent from August, 1982 had been deposited into Court without any default. Therefore, according to the tenant, he cannot be termed as a wilful defaulter.

.4. In so far as the other ground of eviction, namely, demolition and reconstruction is concerned, it is the claim of the tenant that the building is 25 or 30 years old. It is in good condition, and it is not in a dilapidated condition as alleged in the eviction petition. He prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.

5. During trial, evidence both oral and documentary was taken. On the side of the landlord, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and on the side of the respondent, apart from the respondent, one more independent witness was examined as R.W.2. As documentary evidence, Ex.A-1 to A53 were marked, and Ex.B-1 to B-10 were marked on the side of the respondent. An Advocate-Commissioner also inspected the property and verified the physical condition of the building, and fixed Ex.C-1 Report and C-2 Plan.

6. On the above materials, Rent Controller found both grounds in favour of the landlord and allowed eviction. When the matter was taken in appeal, Appellate Authority reversed both the findings and dismissed the eviction petition. Judgment of the Appellate Authority is now challenged in this revision petition.

7. I will first consider the question whether the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

8. As held in P. Orr. & Sons (P) Ltd. versus M/s. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd., 19