The judgment establishes that the availability of bona fide is crucial for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, and satisfactory proof of the intention to demolish the building is required.

Challenge is made to an order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai made in RCA.No.1340 of 2005 affirming the order of the Rent Controller, XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai made in RCOP.No.2215 of 2004 by a common order dated 111. 2005 along with other RCOPs.

2. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The respondent/ landlady filed four RCOP Nos. 2193, 2194, 2215 and 2216 of 2004 against the tenants, four in number, who were occupying the four shops in the building belonged to her alleging that the property in question was old and in a dilapidated condition and that it required immediate demolition and reconstruction, which would yield more income to the landlady and she has also applied to the Corporation of Madras seeking approval for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. Permission has also been granted and the plan has also been approved. Under the circumstances, she, bona fidely required the building for the purpose of demolition and re-construction and hence, eviction of the four tenants has to be ordered. The petitions were resisted by all the tenants by stating that the building was in a good condition, that there was no approval of any plan, that there was no necessity for demolition of the building and the intention of the landlady was to evict the tenants in one way or other. Thus, there was thoroughly lack of bona fide and hence, petitions were to be dismissed.

4. All these four petitions were taken up for enquiry jointly and on enquiry, the Rent Controller, XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai passed an order of eviction on 111. 2005. Aggrieved tenants took it on appeal in RCA.Nos.1339, 1340 and 1341 of 2005 respectively. On enquiry, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed all the appeals. Aggrieved, the tenants took CRP.Nos. 265, 266 and 267 of 2007. While CRP.Nos. 265 and 267 of 2007 were withdrawn by the respective tenants, the above CRP.No.266 of 2007 is the only petition which was pursued before this Court.

.5. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner/ tenant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the landlady filed RCOPs referred to above, four in number, against all the tenants on the ground that the building was required for immediate demolition and reconstruction and there was thoroughly lack of bona fide. Two Engineers were examined. One on the side of the petitioner and one on the side of the respondent. Thus both the courts have recorded the finding that the building was old and it has got to be demolished. But in the instant case, the respondent/ landlady has not proved her bona fide at all. In the year 2003, first RCOP was filed by the tenant in RCOP.No.508 of 2003 for depositing the rents under Section 8(5) of the Act, since there was denial to receive the rent on the part of the landlady. The said petition was dismissed. Therefrom, an appeal in RCA.No. 1381 of 2003 was also failed, which culminated in filing Civil Revision Petition in CRP.No. 1862 of 2004. It is alleged that even on this date the tenant has been continuing to deposit the rent in Court. While the matter stood thus, the landlady filed RCOP.No.2150 of 2003 on the ground of wilful default and also for demolition and reconstruction. Pending the same she filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Act for depositing the rental arrears and that application was dismissed. The appeal therefrom was also dismissed and the CRP therefrom, is pending in this Court. It is pertinent to point out that the said RCOP on both the grounds is pending even today before the Rent Controller. The landlady again filed RCOP.No. 954 of 2004 on the ground of subletting and damages. This application was dismissed. Thereafter RCA.No. 171 of 2005 was filed and it was also dismissed. It has become final since no challenge was made therefrom. RCOP.No. 1060 of 2005 was filed on the ground of change of user. The said R