ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Order of the learned Appellate VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dated 02.08.2012 in R.C.A.No.729 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.2604 of 2008.

2. The petitioners are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant. The demised premise has been leased out to the respondent by the petitioner on rent for the purpose of running his metal shop.

3. The petitioners/landlords have filed a petition against the respondent for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the petition on the ground of wilful default. However, he allowed the petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. When the respondent/tenant challenged the said Order of eviction before the Rent Control Authority, the Appellate Authority set aside the Order of the Rent Controller and allowed the First Appeal. Aggrieved over that, the landlords have filed this present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Despite the Eviction Petition got dismissed on the ground of wilful default, it was allowed on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The petitioners/landlords did not prefer any cross appeal before the First Appellate Authority by asserting the ground of wilful default. So it has to be taken now that the ground on which the landlords claims eviction is only on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

5. The respondent is a long standing tenant of the petitioners who is running a ever silver vessel shop in the demised premises from the year 1975. The above said facts were not denied by the parties themselves. The petitioners have submitted that they are in bonafide requirement of the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. It is not in dispute that the building is very old and the said fact was observed by the Commissioner himself when he inspected the property. Certain observations made by the Commissioner after inspecting the property would glaringly show that the condition of the building is very bad. The report of the Commissioner on this aspect reads as below:-

“5. It is further humbly submitted that the western side outer wall is running in Thirumalai lane, where the lane is about 5 feet width. The outer wall is a very old wall may be of 70 to 80 years old. Where plastering has been fell down in many of the places and where roots of peepal tree had developed in the wall making a small plant in some of the places in the wall.

6. It is further submitted that this schedule property is a double storeyed building where the second floor is partly constructed and it was closely by asbestos sheet. The western and southern wall running from top to bottom from ground floor to 2nd floor in to an extent of about 90 feet approximate in length wise running in Thirumalai lane.

7. It is further humbly submitted that from top to bottom there is a continuation of the western outside wall where one ventilation is seen in the ground floor and 5 ventilators seen in the 1st floor.”

6. The learned counsel for the respondent also admitted that the building is more than 50 years old. However, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that even though the building is old, it is fit for occupation and hence, it need not be demolished. It is further submitted that the property in occupation of the respondent is a part of a bigger unit which is comprised of the portions occupied by another person also and hence, the demised premises cannot be demolished separately and hence, there is no bonafideness in the petition filed on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.

7. The short points which have to be taken up for consideration in this Revision Petition is:-

Whether the requirement of the petitioners could still be bonafide, when the portion in occupation of the building is a part of a bigger un