High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence.

Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.4698 of 1983, on the file of XI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras, having rent control jurisdiction, is the revision petitioner.

2. Respondents filed the present eviction petition on the allegation that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

.3. Material averments in the petition may be stated as follows:

Petitioners (in eviction petition) and their late mother Hussain Begum Namazie are joint owners of the nonresidential bungalow haying an area of more than 10 grounds. The same was let out to the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs.2,400 exclusive of electric and other charges, payable on the 1st of every succeeding English calendar month. Landlords filed a petition under Sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for fixation of fair rent, and by order dated 112. 1979, Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.4,200 per month both parties were not satisfied with the decision of the Rent Controller. The matter was taken before the Appellate Authority and finally it came to this court in C.R.P.Nos.3679 and 3770 of 1982. It is said that the said petitions are pending. As per decision of the Appellate Authority, fair rent was fixed at Rs.6,185 with retrospective effect from 6. 1979.

4. It is alleged that the building is very old and outdated, ill-designed, poorly built and a fast deteriorating structure. When it was constructed, it was designed as one family unit residential bungalow with a spacious compound, and now it is too unwieldy for the original purpose. Considering the importance and high value of the land site, presently it is a poor investment, and to render it worthy, the said building should be reduced to a vacant land site to facilitate the construction of a multi-storeyed complex consisting of residential flats and non-residential apartments.

.5. It is further averred that a similar property of the same condition and design about 2 doors away at the blind end of the road, was demolished about two years ago and replaced with a multi-storeyed building. Petitioners own another property very near the suit property consisting of about 3 1/2 grounds of land-site and building. A plot of about 2 1/2 grounds to the rear of the building comprised in the same door number exclusively belongs to first petitioner and he has put up a multi-storeyed building with a number of buildings in co-operation with a reputed builder, without his having to spend any money for the construction and for his share, he has 30% of the built-up area. There is a competition among builders whenever a good and sizable land site is available. The terms are similar. The land owner is allotted between 30% or 33 1/2% of the built-up area in return for surrender 70% or two-thirds of undivided share in the land site to the owners of the other flats and apartments. The entire cost of construction is borne by the builder and the land owner has nothing to do or spend. It is said that the present Rules and Regulations permit the construction of four floors including the ground floor and not more. The reason is that water and drainage main pipes laid about half a century ago cannot cope up if there are more floors. It is further said that the petitioners have struck a deal with a reputed builder to exploit the land site forming part of the said property and they have been assured the allotment of 30% of the built-up area. The total built-up area in question will be about 60,000 sq.ft. or more in which case the petitioner will gel about 18,000 sq.ft of plinth area in the share of about 3 bedroom flats about a little over 10,000 sq.ft each. Each petitioner will get one flat free for his own occupation and get a monthly rent of Rs.6,000. The monthly rental valuation will be Rs.7,500 for the 5 flats and Rs.22,500 for the 15 flats which will be about 4 times the present rental income. It is further alleged that in view of the long-drawn litigation, the Local Authorities are als