Requirement of eviction held bonafide.

1. The unsuccessful landlord before the appellate authority is the revision petitioner before this court in all the above Civil Revision Petitions.

2. The landlord filed RCOP No. 3422/1992 to 3428 of 1992 against the 7 tenants who are in occupation of the ground floor of the petition schedule property situated at No. 5 Murugappan Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai.79. All the RCOPs., were filed under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), except RCOP No. 3427/1992 which was filed under Sec. 14(1)(b), 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act and RCOP No. 3428/1992 which was filed both under Sec. 14(1)(b) and 10(2)(1) of the Act. The Rent Controller by a common order dated 20.12.1994 allowed all the RCOPs. as prayed for. The same landlord filed RCOP No. 107/1994 against another tenant separately which is also in occupation of one of the shop portions in the ground floor of the very same building under Sec. 14(1)(b), 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vi) of the Act. By another order dated 20.12.1994, the Rent Controller allowed that RCOP also. All the 8 tenants filed appeals before the appellate authority in RCA Nos. 47 to 58 of 1995 and the appellants in RCA Nos. 47and 48 of 1995 have also filed M.P. Nos. 309 and 310 of 1999 to receive the additional documents. All the 8 appeals and the Miscellaneous Petitions were allowed by the appellate authority, thereby the orders of eviction passed by the rent controller were set aside. Aggrieved by the common order dated 6.6.2000, the landlord has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions.

3. The landlord is the absolute owner of the house, ground and premises bearing door No. 5, Murugappan Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai.79 having purchased the same on 23.12.1991 from his vendor. Thereafter this fact was informed to all the 8 tenants who are in occupation of the respective shops in the ground floor of the property and the tenants attorned the tenancy in the name of the revision petitioner/landlord.

4. The landlord filed the eviction petitions against the tenants in RCOP Nos. 3422 to 3426 of 1992 under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Act and against the tenants in RCOP No. 3427 and 3428 of 1992 under Sec. 14(1)(b), 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act and under Sec. 14(1)(b) and 10(2)(1) of the Act. He also filed another RCOP No. 107/1994 against another tenant occupying a shop in the ground floor of the very same property under Sec. 14(1)(b), 10(2)(1) and 10(2)(vi) of the Act. The case of the landlord is that the building is more than 100 years old which is in a dilapidated condition and therefore it requires immediate demolition. He bonafidely requires the building for demolition and for reconstruction of a new building. According to him, the said premises is situated in Elephant Gate Street which is one of the strategic places in Sowcarpet and the income he would get after reconstruction would be much more than what he gets now. He has sufficient fund and he has also obtained demolition plan. He has also submitted the building plan for reconstruction. This is the common ground in all the 8 eviction petitions. In RCOP No. 3427/1992 the landlord has also alleged that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent for January 1992 and he has also sublet the property to the 2nd respondent in that R.C.O.P. In R.C.O.P. No. 3428/1992, the landlord has also pleaded that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents for the period from April 1992 to November 1992. In RCOP No. 107/1994, the landlord has also pleaded that the tenant has committed wilful default and he is in arrears of rent from January 1992 to November 1993 and the tenant has ceased to occupy the demised shop for a continuous period of six months.

5. By a common order dated 20.12.1994, RCOP Nos. 3422 to 3428 of 1992 were allowed by the rent controller by holding that the landlord has proved his case for getting an order of eviction. By another order dated 20.12.94 the re