The condition of the building, the landlords' means to carry out demolition and reconstruction, and the landlords' obtaining of the necessary sanction from the Municipal Authority are all relevant factors in determining the bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

1. These seven Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by three different tenants under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), occupying seven different contiguous “buildings” under the Act. Aggrieved by the concurrent eviction orders passed against them under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, they have preferred these revision petitions.

2. The respondents-landlords, three in number, are common in all the Civil Revision Petitions. The tenant Mohammed Gani is the petitioner in C.R.P. Nos. 1575 and 1579 of 1993, while Edward Danna singh is the petitioner in C.R.P. Nos. 1577, 1578, 1580 and 1581 of 1993 and the tenant Mohammed Khaja Mohideen is the tenant in C.R.P. No. 1576 of 1993. (Door numbers involved in these civil revision petitions are 267, 269, 270, 271 and 272). The Authorities below have mainly found that the condition of the building in each case warrants demolition and reconstruction and hence ordered eviction.

3. The same Counsel appears for the petitioners in all the revision petitions and his submissions are:—Enhancement of rent is alone the motive for the landlords filing these petitions. Even the 2nd respondent, who admittedly manages the Buildings, has not been examined. The landlords have not secured the sanctioned plan for the proposed new construction. The Authorities below erred in relying on the commissioners reports Exs. C.1 to C.6 to arrive at the condition of the building. In one report pertainin g to C.R.P. No. 1577 of 1993, the Commissioner reports that he has no even gone inside the building since it was locked. In another report, he says that only change of roof required. Further, the objections to the commissioners reports have not been taken into consideration. The Authorities below erred in relying on the photographs Exs. A.6 and 7 for coming to a conclusion regarding the condition of the building. The landlords have not proved that they have the required means for putting up new construction. Further, according to the said Counsel, in order to decide the bona fides required in a case under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the totality of all the above referred to circumstances should be considered. But according to him the Authorities below have not done so. He also relies on a passage in P. ORR. & Sons (p) Ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited (1990-2 L.W. 547).

4. On I he other hand, learned counsel for the respondents made the following submissions:—Taking into account all the relevant factors, there will be no difficulty in holding that the claim of the landlords is bona fide for seeking eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The said learned counsel also relied on a passage in 1990-2 L.W. 547 ( supra ). No objection at all was filed for the commissioners reports. At any rate, it being evidence, the Authorities below rightly relied on those reports. Learned counsel also referred to K.K. Subramania Sah v. A. Sampath (1991) I M.L.J. 351. He also points out the relevant portions of the oral evidence. He also submits that there was no denial in the counter regarding the means of the landlords for putting up the construction.

5. I have considered the rival submissions. In my view, there is absolutely no difficulty in concurring with the eviction order that has been passed by both the Authorities below. Let me first of all deal with the condition of the building. Exs. C.1 to 6 really point out the very bad conditions of the buildings in question. Ex. C.1 which deals with door No. 272/whose portions are the buildings in C.R.P. Nos. 1577, 1578 and 1580, mentions inter alia there are cracks in the roof and the rafters made up of palmyra trees are damaged and that the titles thereon are also damaged. Similar observations are found in other commissioners reports also. Those details are mentioned in the orders of the Authorities below and it is also mentioned therein that no objection was filed to the Commissioners reports by ei