The authorities are required to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bona fide or not.

1. The petitioner prays for the issue of Writ of certiorari to call for the records in G.O.Ms. No. 2523 dated 8.9.86 on the file of the Government of Tamilnadu (Home AC.I) Department and also the records relating to K.Dis. 4779/85/A7 dated 5.5.86 of the Sub Collector and Accommodation Controller, Coimbatore and to quash the same.

2. The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing door No. 10/27, Doddarayan Koil Street, Coimbatore, which is under the tenancy of the Government on a monthly rent of Rs. 120/-. The tenancy is for residential purpose and the tenancy is according to the English calendar month. The Government has allotted the premises to the 3rd respondent, Inspector of Police. The petitioner filed an application under Sec. 12(1)(b) of the Tamilnadu Act 18 of 1960 before the 1st respondent for an order directing the allottee to deliver possession of the building to the landlord on the ground that the writ petitioner/landlady bona fide requires the same for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction. Though the averment was made that the 3rd respondent has since been transferred and on that ground the request was made for release of the property, the same has not been pressed. According to the petitioner, she has applied for demolition and reconstruction, that necessary planning permission has been obtained, that building construction plan has been obtained, that the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation has renewed the licence from time to time, that the building is more than 60 years old and in a dilapidated condition, that the building is necessary for demolition and reconstruction to develop the business run in partnership, that the building is a country-tiled one and the rafters are made of coconut trees, that the existing structure is a source of danger to the occupants thereon and that she is entitled to an order directing the allottee to deliver possession. The 1st respondent passed an order on 5.5.86 rejecting the application.

3. As against the orders of the 1st respondent, an appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent, who had concurred with the orders of the 1st respondent and dismissed the appeal by G.O.Ms. No. 2523 (Home AC.I) Department dated 8.9.86. Being aggrieved by the rejection by the 1st respondent, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent, this writ petition has been filed on 3.2.86.

4. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent has filed a counter. The Writ petition was taken up for hearing on 7.2.97 as well as on 10.2.97. Detailed arguments were advanced by Mr. N.V. Nagasubramaniam appearing for Mr. Venkatasamy, Advocate, as well as Mr. M. Govindarajan, Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The other respondents did not appear, though they have already been served in the main writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings of the 1st respondent, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent are vitiated by illegalities, suffer with error apparent on the face of the record and they are liable to be quashed. It is further contended that the respondents have misconstrued the scope and purport of Sec. 12(1)(b) and this misconception had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel further contended that Sec. 12(1)(b) is identical in all respects to Sec. 14(1)(b) and that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the latest pronouncement reported in AIR 1997 SC 47 = 1997-1-L.W. 218 Vijay Singh etc. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal applies even in respect of application filed under Sec. 12(1)(b) of the Act. Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is contended by the learned counsel that the entire orders of the respondents are vitiated as they have not decided the application in the manner required and as provided for in Sec. 12(1)(b) of the Act. It was also contended that a report has been called for from the PWD Engineer, whose inspection has not been disclosed to the petitioner and whose report was also not disclosed, w