The court emphasized that the condition of the building, the landlord's means for reconstruction, and the desire to put the property to a more profitable use were relevant factors in determining the landlord's bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction.

The civil revision petitioner/appellant/respondent/tenant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order dated 21.8.2008 in R.C.A. No. 63 of 2006 passed by the Rent Control Authority viz., the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai in confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 38 of 2003 dated 22.6.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller viz., the learned District Munsif, Madurai Taluk ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction of the premises.

2. The deceased respondent/petitioner/landlord filed petition R.C.O.P. No. 38 of 2003 before the learned Rent Controller, Madurai viz., learned District Munsif, Madurai Taluk under Sections 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the revision petitioner/tenant praying for an order directing the revision petitioner/tenant to fact and deliver possession of the petition mentioned building with costs. Later on the demise of the respondent/landlord, respondents 2 and 3 have been impleaded as Legal Representatives of the original deceased landlord as per order in I.A. No. 201 of 2000 dated 7.3.2001.

3. After contest, the learned Rent Controller has negatived the pleas of Different User and Sub Lease, but ordered eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction granting two months time to the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant to vacate the premises.

4. Aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 38 of 2003 dated 22.6.2006 the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant has filed an appeal R.C.A. No. 63 of 2006 before the learned Appellate Authority viz., Principal Sub Judge, Madurai and the learned Appellate Authority on an overall consideration of appreciation of material evidence on record has passed orders on 21.8.2008 in dismissing the appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller passed in R.C.O.P. No. 38 of 2003 dated 22.6.2006 and also granted two months time to the revision petitioner/tenant to hand over vacant possession of the petition building to the respondents/landlords.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ tenant urges before this Court that the learned Rent Controller ought to have rejected the plea raised by the landlord that the building is an old one and it needs immediate demolition and reconstruction which has been constructed before 60 years is not a correct one in the eye of law and further the landlord has not established the factum of bona fide requirement and moreover, the learned Rent Controller placed reliance on the photos filed by the landlord and also that the learned Appellate Authority has also failed to apply its mind and added further, both the authorities have erred in coming to the conclusion that the building is in a deteriorated condition and in fact the building is very strong even though some plastering in over the wall pealed off will not go to the extent of demolishing the building and that the Commissioner's report, which is a biased one should have been rejected by both the authorities and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.

6. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant that the landlord has already completed his new building as per the approved building plan and hence, there is no necessity to demolish this portion of the building and as far as the plastering in the wall is concerned it will not strength the building and hence, small damages in the plastering need not lead to the demolition of the building and the Advocate/Commissioner and the Engineer have failed to make sufficient tests known to law in testing the strongest of the petition mentioned building and these aspects of the matter have not been looked into by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority and therefore, to prevent miscarriage of justice, this Court has to allow the civil revision petition fi