JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 14.11.2019 made in R.C.A.Nos.5 & 6 of 2019 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Madurai, confirming the decreetal and fair order, dated 09.11.2018 made in R.C.O.P.No.65 & 64 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Madurai Town.)

1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 14.11.2019 in R.C.A.Nos.5 & 6 of 2019 passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Madurai, confirming the decreetal and fair order, dated 09.11.2018 in R.C.O.P.No.65 & 64 of 2015, passed by the learned Principal Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Madurai Town.

2. The revision petitioners herein are tenants and the respondent herein is landlord. The respondent herein/landlord has filed two interlocutory petitions under Section 14(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, in R.C.O.P.Nos.64 & 65 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Madurai Town, to evict the tenants and to hand over the possession of the building to the landlord for demolition and reconstruction. Both the RCOPs were allowed on 09.11.2018. Against the said order, the revision petitioners/tenants have filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.5 & 6 of 2019. The Appellate Court had dismissed both the appeals on 14.11.2019. Aggrieved over the said order, the tenants/revision petitioners are before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the records.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that there is no significant structural issues with the building to necessitate demolition and reconstruction. He further contended that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the petition for eviction does not contain any specific plea setting out the reasons for demolition and reconstruction. The petition only contains vague statements on structural soundness of the building. He further contented that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the report of the engineer does not establish that the building is unsound and in imminent need of demolition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment reported in 2019 (4) CTC 890 in the case of Prabhakaran Vs. Dr.Muthulakshmi, is held as follows:

“Held, existence of bona fide requirement is essential pre-requisite for seeking eviction on ground of Owner's occupation – Absence of reference to earlier Eviction proceedings and sudden change of ground for eviction casts serious doubt on bona fides of Landlord's requirement – Authorities below erred in not verifying bona fides of Landlord.”

6. There is no doubt that the landlord has to prove his bonafide intention in evicting the tenant.

7. The point for consideration is that, whether any bonafides on the claim of landlord to seek eviction of the tenants?

8. As per the case of the respondent herein/landlord, the building in petition property are old and indilapidated condition. Apart from the ground level the entire building became lower than road level due to periodical raise of road level. The revision petition mentioned property was constructed 40 years ago. He has sufficient means to construct new building.

9. The revision petitioners/tenants have denied the averments in the petitions. They denied the condition of the building as stated in the petitions are false. The petition mentioned property is new and is in good condition.

10. The learned Rent controller has passed an order in R.CO.P.No.65 of 2015 in his judgment The relevant po