Revisional court will not reappreciate evidence.

1. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authorities ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction (under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act), the Tenants have preferred these Revision Petitions.

2. Since both Revision Petitions arise out of common order and same set of facts are relevant for both the Revision Petitions, both Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. The demised premises relates to the entire building in Door No.137 (Old No.403) Mint Street, Chennai. The portions in the building were let out to three tenants — Central Glass Traders and the Revision Petitioners. The other Tenant — Central Glass Traders, who filed R.C.A. No.33 of 2003 against the order in R.C.O.P. No.625 of 1998 has vacated and withdrew the said R.C.A. No.33 of 2003.

4. The Tenant in R.C.O.P. No.627 of 1998 (C.R.P. No.2669 of 2004) has become Tenant under the Respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.225/- for running textile business. The Tenant in R.C.O.P. No.628 of 1998 (C.R.P. No.61 of 2005) has become Tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- and running the business under the name and style of "Yuvak Business". The Respondent/Landlord sought eviction on the ground that the building is aged 90 years old and First and Second Floors and substantial portion in the ground floor behind the shop let out to the Tenants have collapsed and fallen down and the building has lost lateral support. The Respondent sent Notice dated 011. 1997 informing the Tenants about the bad condition of the building and calling upon them to vacate Since the Tenants have not chosen to send any reply, the Landlord has filed eviction petitions on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The Respondent/Landlord has sufficient means and resources to put up construction. After reconstruction, the Respondent/Landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation.

5. The Tenants resisted the eviction petitions contending as follows:

The front side shops are structurally sound and the building is in good condition and does not require demolition and reconstruction. The backside portion was partly demolished even before eviction proceedings were initiated in 1998 and even after demolition in the backside, the Landlord has not commenced and reconstruction activities. The Respondent/Landlord offered property for sale and the main object of the Respondent is only to sell the property for a fancy price by demolishing the structure and the Landlord has no idea of putting up any new construction and therefore, the alleged requirement of the building is not bona fide.

6. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Referring to Exs.C.1 and C.3 and other evidence, learned Rent Controller found that the age of the building is more than 75 years and the building is old and in dilapidated condition. Referring to obtaining of Building Plan and Licence for putting up construction, bona fide requirement of the Landlord was upheld. Referring to the Fixed Deposits and Bank Balance (Exs.P.9 to P.19) and Loan Sanction Letter -Ex.P.20, learned Rent Controller found that the Landlord has sufficient means to construct the building. Satisfied with the bona fide requirement, eviction was ordered on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Concurring with the findings that the Building is old and in dangerous condition, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Revision Petitioners.

7. Assailing the concurrent findings of the authorities below, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner Mr. R. Thiyagarajan (in C.R.P. No.61 of 2005) has contended that the requirement is not bona fide and the age and condition of the building are not substantiated. Submitting that the Respondent/Landlord is a practising Advocate having residential house at T.Nagar, Chennai, it was contended that there was no bona fide requirement. Regarding the building plans and licen