Landlords with sufficient funds and evidence of building dilapidation are entitled to eviction for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

C.R.P(NPD)No.1973/1994:

The tenant in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1988 is the revision petitioner herein. The said petition was filed by the landlords/respondents under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings( Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act") for demolition and reconstruction on the ground that the petition building is very old and in a dilapidated condition. The tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1988 has filed a counter contending that the building is sound and there is no need to demolish the same and only for the purpose of demanding higher rent, the vexatious petition has been filed by the landlords.

2. On behalf of the landlords/ respondents one Shakarun Bi Ameed was examined as P.W.1. apart from examining one Thangappan, Photograper as P.W.2. Exs P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the landlord. On the side of the tenant , the revision petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and the reply notice dated 17. 1988 was marked as Ex R1. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to ascertain the age of the building and also the present condition of the building. The learned Advocate Commissioner with the help of an Assistant Engineer,P.W.D., had visited the petition schedule building and filed his report Ex C1 and Plan Ex C2. After going through both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller has come to a conclusion that the landlords are entitled to the relief as prayed for in the petition and accordingly allowed the petition, giving three months time to the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the landlord. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant had preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.15 of 1991 ,wherein the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has held that there is no material to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Controller, has dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, which necessitated the tenant to prefer C.R.P.(NPD) No.1973/1994.

C.R.P(NPD) No.1974 of 1994:

3. This revision petition was preferred against the Judgment in R.C.A.No.14 of 1991 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/ District Judge,Nilgiris which had arisen out of an order in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1988 on the file of learned Rent Controller, Gudaloor, which was filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

4. On behalf of the landlords one Shakarun Bi Ameed was examined as P.W.1 and Thangappan, Photographer was examined as P.W.2 Exs P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the landlords. The tenant has examined himself as R.W.1 besides exhibiting Ex R1 reply notice dated 17. 1988. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to assess the stability of the building with the help of an expert , an Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. The Advocate Commissioner has visited the petition schedule building and filed his report Ex C1 and Plan Ex C2. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller has come to a conclusion that the landlords are entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act against the respondent/tenant and accordingly allowed the petition, giving three months time to the tenant to vacate and hand over the possession of the petition schedule building. Aggrieved by findings of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant has preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.14 of 1991 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/District Judge, Nilgiris, who had concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the appeal, which necessitated the tenant to prefer C.R.P.No.1974 of 1994.

5. Heard Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who would contend that since both the Courts below have concurrently held that the buildings in both rent Control Original Petitions are in a dilapidated condition and are required for demolition and reconstruction, had allowed the rent control original petitions filed by the landlo