Land lord has no means of his own to get the building renovated.

This revision petition is filed by the tenants in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1984, on the file of Rent Controller, Dindigul. Eviction was sought against the petitioners on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

2.. Initially in the eviction petition, when it was filed, there was no averment therein that the building is in a bad shape, or that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. In the petition, it was originally stated that the landlords wanted to put up a building complex after demolishing the entire structure. It is also alleged that the State Bank of India is intending to have their office in that building, and being an important locality, they wanted to demolish the entire structure and put that area to better use. Later, by amendment, necessary averments that are required under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act were incorporated, and it was further contended that the Karur Vysya Bank has offered financial assistance of Rs.15 lakhs to the landlords for putting up construction and to make use of the structure for their use. They also contended that they have got the necessary plan and licence, and they require eviction bona fide for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.

3. In the counter filed by the petitioners herein (tenants), they disputed the bona fides of the landlords, and by virtue of an amendment, raised a contention that the respondents herein are not the landlords of the building but only in respect of the site, it was contended that the petitioner’s grandfather initially put up a structure after getting a lease of the land, and thereafter the petitioners have put up the present structure in the property. It was, therefore, stated that there is no landlord and tenant relationship in so far as the building is concerned. They further said that the State Bank of India has shifted to some other building, and they do not require any premises in. that area and, therefore, the requirement alleged in the petition has ceased to exist. They also said that the building is in a good shape and the same does not require demolition and reconstruction.

4. The Rent Controller held that since the State Bank of India has shifted their office from the premises to some other place, the requirement has ceased to exist. It is further found by the Rent Controller that it cannot be said that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction in the sense that the Commissioner who visited the property has not staled that it will collapse at any time or that it is in a dangerous condition. The Rent Controller further found that if necessary repairs and maintenance is done, for some more years the building can lost. Rent Controller further held that when P.W. 1 was examined, a suggestion was put to him as to whether the building was not constructed by the petitioner’s grandfather, and since the suggestion was not denied the denial of title in so far as the superstructure is concerned, is bonafide For the above reasons, the eviction petition was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the order of Rent Controller, landlords preferred R.C.A.No.22 of 1993. The Appellate Authority reversed the order of Rent Controller and allowed eviction.

6. While reversing the order, the Appellate Authority, held that the denial of title now it forward by the tenants is lacking in good faith. The Appellate Authority took note of Ex.A-3, an application filed by the tenants themselves in R.C.O.P.No. 107 of 1982, seeking permission of the Rent Controller, to deposit the rent in Court. The same was allowed. The Appellate Authority held that since the tenants themselves (i.e. respondents before the Appellate Authority) had invoked the provisions of the Rent Control Act and wanted permission for depositing the rent in Court thereby accepting the title of the landlords, the denial of title over the superstructure in the present proceedings can only be an afterthought. The Appellate Authority said t