The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles for recording a finding that the requirement for demolition was bona fide, considering the age and condition of the building, the financial position of the landlord, and the approval of the building plan.

The petitioner is the landlord. He filed R.C.O.P.No.151 of 1998, on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Madurai Town, for eviction of respondent, who is the tenant, from the demised premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The building belongs to the petitioner.

2. In the petition for eviction, he has alleged that the respondent/tenant is running a tailoring shop in the demised premises which was taken by him on lease for Rs.300/- as rent per month. The building is situated in a locality where the area is fast developing. As the existing building is old fashioned and not so strong to put up further construction, this Petitioner intends to pull down the same and put up a pucca building with all modern amenities for his convenient residence and also to construct commercial complex in the remaining portion. He has submitted the necessary building plan for approval to the Madurai City Municipal Corporation. He has got sufficient funds to demolish the building and to construct a new building. He has made all arrangements in this respect. On 08.05.1998, he sent a notice to the respondent to vacate and surrender the building. However, he did not send any reply. Hence, the petition may be allowed.

3. In the counter filed by the respondent/tenant, it is alleged that it is incorrect to state that the building is old fashioned and that the area in which the building is situated is fast developing and that building has to be pulled down to put up a new building for his convenient residence and also to make a commercial complex. The building is a new one which is in good and strong condition and it wears a new look. The requirement of the petitioner is not at all bona fide one, but invented for the purpose of evicting the tenant. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

4. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application ordering eviction of the tenant within a period of two months. Hence, he carried the matter in appeal in R.C.A. No.55 of 2006, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai. The Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, by setting aside the order of eviction by observing that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. Hence, the landlord is before this Court with this Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.A.Mohanram would strenuously contend that the pleadings made by this petitioner, the documents produced by him and also oral testimonies adduced on his behalf, would amply show that he bona fide requires the building for demolition and re-construction and the converse findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority are not sustainable. He further submits that even though the landlord produced a copy of the plan which remained unapproved at the time of the enquiry in the eviction application, after the R.C.A. was over, he got the plan approved and that he has also increased the deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of demolition and re-construction.

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant Mr.R.Subramanian would submit that the landlord has miserably failed to establish that he bona fide requires the buildings for the purpose of demolition and re-construction, that he did not produce the approved plan before the Rent Controller, that he had not shown sufficient means for demolition and reconstruction and that the observations made by the Rent Control Appellate Authority need not be disturbed.

7. Before entering into discussion in this case, it is incumbent upon this Court to refer and follow the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in a decision in Vijay Singh and others V. Vijayalakshmi Ammal reported in 1997 1 L.W. 218 = 1996 (2) CTC 586, wherein Their Lordships, after referring to various judgments of the Court, formulated the following principles before makin