ORDER :

G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

1. This civil revision petition is arising out of judgment and decree dated 13.06.2016 passed in RCA. No. 628 of 2014 on the file of VII Small Causes Court, Chennai thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed in RCOP. No. 1501 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Controller, XV Small Causes Court, Chennai thereby allowing the petition filed for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the landlady (hereinafter called as landlady) and the respondent is the tenant (herein after called as tenant). The petition premises is consisting of ground and first floor. The landlord let out the petition premises in the year 2006 to the respondent. The tenant is paying monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- and also paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as advance. The petition premises was let out to the respondent for residential purpose. Thereafter the tenant with the consent of the landlady used the property for non residential purpose. Due to expansion of landlady's family, the landlady intended to demolish the existing building and construct new apartment in the petition premises. Hence, the petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

3. Resisting the same, the tenant filed counter stating that the landlady intended to vacate the tenant from petition premises by using illegal methods. In fact, the landlady lodged complaint with false allegations and threatened the tenant to vacate the premises. The tenant also filed suit for bare injunction restraining the landlady from forcible eviction, except due process of law. The petition premises does not require for demolition since it is in very good condition. Further stated that she is not possessing any absolute right, title, interest or authority over the petition premises. The property stands in the name of Manager and the said property had been sold by Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Therefore, there is absolutely no title in favour of the landlady. There is no bonafide requirement for immediate demolition and reconstruction. The tenant is carrying on his business in the petition premises and it is the only source of his livelihood.

4. In support of the landlady's case, PW1 was examined and six documents were marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P6. On the side of the tenant, RW1 was examined and Ex. R1 to Ex. R4 were marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the respective parties and the submission made by the learned counsel, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition for demolition and reconstruction. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant preferred appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA. No. 628 of 2014 and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on appreciating the materials placed on records, allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for demolition and reconstruction. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

5. Mr. P.L. Narayanan, the learned counsel for the landlady submitted that the landlady is residing in the rental house and pays monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/- per month and as such her requirement is bonafide one. She has financial capacity and source of income for reconstruction of building in the petition premises. The petition premises is located in the prime and commercial locality and as such she can very well mobilise funds either from bank or from private financial institution. He further submitted that admittedly, the age of the building is more than 25 years and the landlady is residing in the rental house with her children. Therefore, she is in dire need of the petition premises for demolition and reconstruction of the existing building for her own use and for augmentation of income. He relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Raja Mohammed Vs. V