The main legal point established is that the tenant has a statutory duty to pay rent without demand from the landlord, and the landlord's requirement for demolition and reconstruction must be bona fide, considering factors such as financial position and intention.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common judgment and decree dated 28.11.1994 and made in R.C.A.Nos.7 of 1992 and 9 of 1992, confirming the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.62 of 1989 and 59 of 1989, respectively, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Nagapattinam.

2. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions are as follows:- The petitioners before the Rent Controller, Nagapattinam, who are the appellants before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, are the revision petitioners herein. The revision petitioners are the owners of the property described in the eviction petition. The revision petitioners leased out a thatched shed measuring about 33-1/2 feet x 19-3/4 feet, to the respondent, on 21.7.1982. on a monthly rent of Rs.30 and advance amount of Rs.100 was paid. The area of lease was enlarged by extending the thatched sheet by 53 feet x 19-3/4 feet, in the year 1983 and the respondent agreed to pay the rent at Rs.40 per month. The respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1989 to September, 1989, totalling to Rs.320, for a period of 8 months. The 1st revision petitioner is doing business by visiting abroad frequently and he is not maintaining good health to carry on business in abroad. The revision petitioners have decided to start business in timber and therefore they want to demolish the thatched shed and to construct an R.C.C. building with shops to carry on the said business. The revision petitioners will comply with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in demolishing the thatched shed and constructing the R.C.C. building. The revision petitioners are having sufficient funds and have also obtained approved plan and permission for such construction. The revision petitioners undertake to commence the demolition of the thatched shed within a month from the date of taking possession and complete the construction within a period of three months therefrom. It is under the said circumstances the revision petitioners have sought for eviction of the respondent from the demised premises.

3. The respondent herein resisted the claim made by the revision petitioners on the following grounds:- The thatched shed was let out to the respondent herein by the revision petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs.30 and on payment of Rs.100 as advance and thereafter the rent was increased to Rs.40 along with further advance or Rs.1000. The respondent herein had spent a sum of Rs.3,000 so far with the consent of the revision petitioners for repairing the thatched roof of the said premises, apart from spending a sum of Rs.500 for getting electric connection. The revision petitioners had agreed to adjust the abovesaid amounts from the rent payable. The 1st revision petitioner used to go abroad in connection with his business frequently and the 2nd revision petitioner is a pardhanashin woman. The rent from the respondent was collected through one Sheik Allaudin, the husband of the sister of the 2nd revision petitioner or through Noorul Amin, the son of the 2nd revision petitioner, who used to make necessary entries in the hand note book maintained by the respondent. The respondent went to the house of the revision petitioners to pay the rent several time, but, the 2nd revision petitioner asked him to pay the rent either to Sheik Allaudin or to her son. Sensing that the revision petitioners as well as Sheik Allaudin and Noorul Amin are avoiding to receive the rent, the respondent sent the rent for the months of February, 1989 to July, 1989, by money order, to Sheik Allaudin, which was returned as. refused. The respondent sent a notice to the revision petitioners, through his counsel, asking them either to receive the rent for the abovesaid period or to specify the name of a bank in which the amount may be deposited. The notice sent to the 1st revision petitioner returned uns