Eviction sought on the ground of building being in dilapidated condition.

This batch of petitions arises out of four petitions filed by the landlady under section 14 (1) (6) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act Madras Act XVIII of 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that the building is bona fide required by her for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition was to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. All the four petitions were heard together and disposed of and allowed by the Rent Controller by a common order There were four separate appeals which were disposed of by four separate orders of the Appellate Authority. In three cases, out of which C.R.P. Nos. 1337, 1338 and 1342 of 1964 arise, the petitions of the landlady were dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller reversed while in one appeal the order of the Rent Controller was confirmed. C.R.P. No. 1255 of 1964 has been preferred by the tenant while the other three Revision Petitions have been preferred by the landlady.

The building in question is a non-residential one situated in Triplicane High Road, a very busy business centre. The four tenants were each occupying a shop in front and carrying on business there ; all the four shops constituted one block essentially forming part of one single building, though let out as separate units. In the petitions the landlady alleged that these shops are more than a century old and old fashioned being tiled ones, and that she wanted the possession of the buildings with a view to immediately demolish these old shops and put up a pucca new terraced building on one block for which purpose she had applied to the Corporation of Madras and had also obtained sanction of the plan in B.A. No. 5829 of 1062 on 12th November, 1962. Her further case was that as the premises in question is in a commercial and business locality of the City, it would be more advantageous to have a new construction with a double-storey for constructing which she has ample resources.

The four tenants filed separate objection statements in none of which was any suggestion made that the petition for eviction was filed with any ulterior motive or as a lever to obtain enhanced rent. The main objection by the four tenants was of the same pattern, i.e., that the building was not so bad and in such a dilapidated condition as to require immediate demolition. The statement of the landlady about her resources and means to put up a new building was not questioned by any of the tenants.

Before the Rent Controller, the agent of the landlady, was examined on her side, while on the side of the tenants, two tenants, one Mehboob Basha, tenant in H.R.C. No. 5927 of 1962 and Jaffer Baig tenant in H.R.C No. 5133 of 1962 were examined as R.Ws. 1 and 2.

The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W. 1, the agent of the landlady, was substantially true, that there was no rebutting evidence, that the buildings were 60 or 70 years old that the landlady bona fide required the building for the purpose of demolishing and for putting up a new construction. This view was reversed by the Appellate Authority by a process of reasoning which I consider singularly perverse. A reading of the appellate orders in three cases shows that the Appellate Authority has misread the evidence and overlooked the fact that in two cases there has been no rebutting evidence and in one case the tenant who examined himself admitted that the condition of the building was fifty or sixty years old and required demolition and reconstruction. Again in the other case in which the tenant Jaffer Baig has been examined as R.W. 2 he has not said a word about the condition of the building, with the result that the evidence on the side of the landlady with regard to the condition or age of the building remained unrebut-ted. But yet the Appellate Authority has rejected the same on the ground that his testimony is interested. It has overlooked the fact that t