The landlord's bona fide intention for demolition and reconstruction, and proof of financial status, are crucial for seeking eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

1. The landlord is the Revision Petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. Originally, the landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2008, on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Thanjavur, against the respondent herein, who is the tenant in respect of a premises owned by the landlord for evicting him on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Even in the petition filed in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2008, the landlord has mentioned that the building is more than 80 years old and that it is in dilapidated condition. The petitioner has also stated about his financial soundness. The petitioner has further stated in the petition that he intends to construct row of shops so as to augment his income. Since other owners of the building who have also have their lands adjacent to the petitioner's building have put up new buildings with a good outlook, the petitioner has stated that the building is bona-fidely required by him for demolition and reconstruction. It is also specifically stated in the petition that the adjacent property comprised in T.S. No. 2174 is also owned by the petitioner and that all the five tenants occupying the said property had been vacated from the building and the petitioner had already demolished the adjacent building owned by him. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's project is stopped because of the occupation of demised premises by the respondent/tenant. It is also stated by the petitioner that the petition mentioned property is a piece of property situated in front of T.S. No. 2174 and the petitioner has planned to construct a new building comprised in T.S. Nos. 2174 and 2190, which are contiguous.

2. No doubt, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the facts stated in the petition. The petitioner's bona-fide is also questioned in the counter affidavit. It was the further contention of the respondent that he invested few lakhs in his business apart from decorating the shop with wooden show-cases fitted with glass door and lightings. It is stated in the counter affidavit that if the respondent is forced to vacate the shop he will loose everything. Therefore, the hardship that was likely to be caused to the tenant was raised as a defence in the proceedings. Earlier, the Rent Controller passed an order, directing eviction. Eviction was confirmed in appeal in R.C.A. No. 2 of 2009. However, on revision before this Court in C.R.P. (MD) No. 742 of 2012, the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority.

3. After remand, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction filed by the landlord. It is against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord.

4. Despite notice to the respondent through Court, the respondent did not appear. Since the service was completed, office was directed to show his name in the cause list and accordingly, his name was also printed in the cause list.

5. The Appellate Authority relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, 1996 (2) CTC 586 held that the landlord has to prove that his intentions are bona-fide and to prove the other ingredients of Section 14 (1) (b) of Act. It is to be noted that based on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellate Authority accepted the legal position that condition of the building is not relevant for determining bona-fides. However, the Appellate Authority held that the petitioner has not produced any documentary proof or stability certificate from the competent Civil Engineer. Further, it is also observed that the petitioner has not proved the age of the building. The Appellate Authority found that the petitioner has not stated anything about his financial status for undertaking demolition and reconstruction of a new building. It is also observed by the Appellate Authority that the petitione