1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the tenants as revision petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2000 and made in R.C.A. Nos. 962 of 1997, 696 of 1998, 964 of 1997, 960 of 1997 and 966 of 1997 respectively on the file of the learned 8th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the order and decretal order dated 29.10.1997 and 30.4.1998 made in R.C.O.P.Nos. 4058 to 4062 of 1984 on the file of the learned Xth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

2: Brief facts, that are necessary for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: The respondent in each of the C.R.P. who is the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller in all the rent control petitions is the owner of the premises described in the respective petitions and the revision petitioners herein are the tenants of the respective premises shown in the respective rent control petitions. The premises described in each of the petition was constructed by the respondent herein as a temporary one and had been leased out to the respective tenants described in each of the petition. The respondent herein requires the premises under the occupation of the above said tenants for demolition and reconstruction. The building under the occupation of the above said tenants is very old. The respondent herein had obtained necessary approved plan and permission from Corporation of Madras for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction. The respondent herein has given undertaking in respective petitions to commence the work of demolition within one month from the date of delivery of possession from the tenants namely, the revision petitioners to the respondent herein and to complete such work of demolition within three months from the said date. The revision petitioners are evading to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession. It is under the said circumstances, the respondent herein as petitioner in each of the petition has come forward with a prayer for permission to demolish and reconstruct the building as he has got sufficient means for the same.

3. The tenants as respondents in each of the rent control petition has taken a similar stand with regard to the claim made by the respondent herein as petitioner: the respondent herein is the owner of the premises described in each of the petition and the Civil Revision Petitioners described therein as respondents are the tenants under the respondent herein for the rent specified in each of the petition. The building is a R.C.C. construction. The building is not old and there is no cracks. The building does not warrant immediate demolition. The respondent herein has to prove obtaining of building plan and permission from the authorities concerned. The construction described in each of the petition is not a temporary structure. The respondent herein is seeking an order of eviction only to sell the property to third party. The requirement is not bona fide and therefore, the revision petitioners in each of the Civil Revision Petition has sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent herein as petitioner.

4. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the material evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the requirement of the demised premises referred to above by the respondent herein as petitioner in each of the petition is not bona fide and accordingly dismissed all the rent control petitions referred to above. Aggrieved at the order and decretal order dated 24.12.1987 passed by the learned 10th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the landlord as appellant has preferred appeals in R.C.A.Nos. 468 to 472 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

5. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after considering the submissions made on both sides, in the light of the material evidence available on record, concurred with the conclusion of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeals by means of a common order. Aggrieved at the judgment and decree dated 29.9.1989 and made in R.C.A.Nos. 468 to 472 of 1987, the respondent herein as revision petitioner has preferred Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.Nos. 1069 to 1073 of 1993 on the file of the High Court, Madras.

6. Learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the submissions made by both sides in C.R.P. Nos. 1069 to 1073 of 1993 has confirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to the financial viability of the respondent herein to demolish and reconstruct the building, but set aside the findings of the Courts below with direction as follows:

On receipt of copy of this order, the Rent Controller shall depute an Advocate Commissioner, who shall visit the property after notice to the parties, take into consideration the development and importance in the locality, whether modem buildings have come up in that locality, the present condition of the building and the amenities to the building, how far it will be economically advantageous to the landlord if a modern building with modern amenities are put up. Along with the same, the Commissioner will also take into consideration the present condition of the building and file a report. On getting the report, the Rent controller shall decide the matter afresh except regarding the finding which is confirmed by this Court, i.e. regarding the means of the landlord.

7. C.R.P.No. 1073 of 1993 was considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court and remanded the matter to the learned Rent Controller for the very same purpose.

8. Learned Rent Controller, who received the records and the order passed by this Court, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to comply with the direction given by the learned Single Judge of this Court as mentioned above and to submit a report before the Rent Controller to decide the matter in dispute before the said Court. Admittedly, the Advocate Commissioner has submitted her report and plan and she was examined as a Court witness, who was subjected to cross-examination also by the interested parties to the proceedings. Learned Rent Controller, after considering the evidence available on record, the report and the plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in the light of her evidence, has come to the conclusion that the requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and accordingly ordered for eviction of the petitioners herein from the premises and their occupation. Aggrieved at the order and decree dated 29.10.1997 and 30.4.1998 and made in R.C.O.P.Nos. 4058 to 4062 of 1984, the respondents before the learned Rent Controller as appellants have preferred the appeals in R.C.A.Nos. 960, 962, 964, 966 of 1997 and 696 of 1998 on the file of the learned 8th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

9. Learned 8th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, after considering the submissions made on both sides in the light of the materials available on record, confirmed the order of learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeals filed by the respective tenants, who are the Civil Revision Petitioners herein. Aggrieved at the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2000 and made in R.C.As referred to above, the tenants, who are the appellants before the learned Rent Control Authority, have come forward with this Civil Revision Petitions.

10. The fact remains that the respondent herein in each of the Civil Revision Petition is the owner of the premises described in each of the Rent Control Petition referred to above and the respondents described in each of the above said petition is the tenant of the premises described in the respective petition for the rent specified therein. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent herein and the Civil Revision Petitioners in each of the petition. Admittedly, the premises under the occupation of the Revision petitioners measuring about 800 Sq.ft., is situate in Sullivan Garden Road, Madras. The built up portion under the occupation of the each of the revision petitioners is R.C.C. construction and it seems that Civil Revision Petitioner in each of the petition has put up temporary structure in the concerned front portion of the said R.C.C. construction. The fact also remains that the respondent herein, after retaining the above said extent of 800 Sq.ft., facing Sullivan Garden Road, had sold the remaining portion in the behind, with old building, to one Mahalakshmi Apartments and 40 Flats have already been constructed in the sold out portion. It is this front portion, measuring about 800 Sq.ft., required by the respondent for putting up new construction, after demolishing the existing construction in the above said 800 Sq.ft. Necessary undertaking has been given in the petitions by the respondent herein to demolish the building as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The financial soundness for such demolition and reconstruction of the building by the respondent herein has been accepted by this Court and made it final before remanding the matter with some specific direction to the learned Rent Controller.

11. learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the building is not old, warranting immediate demolition and reconstruction and that the Courts below have not applied their mind in appreciating the remand order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and in coming to the conclusion that the requirement of the demised premise for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide.

12. learned Counsel appearing for the respondent herein in each of the Civil Revision Petition contends contra to it. It is not in dispute, as already pointed out, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Advocate Commissioner had submitted her report and plan. The Advocate Commissioner was also examined as a Court witness and she was subjected to cross-examination also by the parties to the proceedings. It is evident from the evidence of the Advocate Commissioner and also from her report that she had noticed patches, cement plastering in several places in the ceiling and also water leakage marks in R.C.C. ceiling in all the shops under the occupation of the Civil Revision Petitioners. She had also noticed cracks in the walls under the occupation of the Civil Revision Petitioners and patch works done for the same. She had also noticed damage in floorings and patch works done in such floorings. In one of the shops, under the occupation of the Civil Revision petitioners, the Advocate Commissioner had noticed that the steel rod in R.C.C. Roof is exposed. It is also seen that the doors and windows are soaked with water and could not be closed in certain premises. Outer wall of the said premises is said to be kept untidy and with cracks. There is no staircase to reach the terrace portion as seen from the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner. According to the Advocate Commissioner, cement flooring in the terrace have been done recently and the same can be seen from the colouring of the flooring of the terrace and the old construction already in existence. The above said facts, noticed by the Advocate Commissioner would disclose that the building under the occupation of the revision petitioners is not in good condition. That apart, it is also noticed by the Advocate Commissioner that in all the five shops except one, the only amenities available is the electricity power connection and no other amenities are provided to the demised premises, which is not in good condition.

13. A perusal of the Advocate Commissioner's Report and the evidence would disclose that Sullivan Garden Road is branching off from Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, where many Star Hotels are situate and there is no dispute that the said locality is a prime and posh locality in the city of Madras. There is no dispute that many bungalows as well as modern Flats and Apartments are situate in that locality. As already pointed out, there are 40 Flats just behind the demised premises. C.I.T. Colony, which is also another posh locality is situate adjacent to this locality. Commercial multi-storeyed complex with ground floor and residential Flats are coming up just opposite to the demised premises as seen from the report. Vivekananda Autonomous College is admittedly situate at a three minutes walkable distance from the demised premises. A.V.M. Rajeswari Kalyana Mandapam, A.V.M. Preview Theatre and the Popular Hotel Saravana's Fast Food Restaurant are situate in Dr. Radhakrishnan Road. Madras E.N.T. Research Foundation, a palatial type Health Care Centre, famous departmental store known as "Nilgiris", a luxurious fully Air conditioned vegetable shop named as "Ooty Fresh Vegetable Shop", a luxurious Restaurant named as "Nest" are also situate nearby the demised premises. The location of the demised premises, as seen from the evidence, report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner, is in a locality, which is having commercial complex and residential buildings, including Flats. If any building with good amenities is constructed in ultra modern fashion, it will certainly fetch very good income to the respondent herein, as rightly pointed out by the Advocate Commissioner.

14. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, the respondent herein is seeking to evict the revision petitioners herein only with a view to sell this property to third party after evicting them from the demised premises. learned Counsel for the respondent herein contends contra, pointing out the undertaking given in the petitions as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. There is absolutely no evidence on the side of the revision petitioners to establish that this property is going to be sold by the respondent herein to third party after getting the order of eviction against the Civil Revision Petitioners. In the absence of any evidence for the same, the vague contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioners as mentioned above cannot be accepted.

15. This Court in M.M. Iliyas and Anr. v. M.R. Pakkirisamy (2000)3 C.T.C. 321 has held that for eviction of a tenant on the ground of demolition of the building for erecting a new building, the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human habitation, following the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (1997)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 98 : (1996)2 C.T.C. 586 : (1996)6 S.C.C. 475 wherein the Apex Court was pleaded to hold as follows:

On reading Section 14(1)(b) along with Section 16, it can be said that for eviction of a tenant on the ground of demolition of the building for erecting a new building, the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human habitation. If that was the requirement there is no occasion to put a condition to demolish within a specified time, and to erect a new building on the same site Permission under Section 14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller on mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately demolish the building in question to erect a new building. At the same time, it is difficult to accept the stand of the appellants that the building must be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human habitation. For granting permission under Section 14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bona fide or not. For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account: (1) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirement of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b). No Court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller.

16. Following the decision reported in S. Saraswathi Ammal (deceased) and 2 Ors. v. Mallikarjun Raja and 2 others (1997)2 M.L.J. 474 : (1997)1 C.T.C. 280 : (1997)2 L.W. 287 a learned single Judge of this Court in Dorali Gounder v. Ganeshmal and four others (1998)2 L.W. 546 has held The building need not be in a dilapidated condition or in a dangerous state of affairs for ordering eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.

The principles laid down by their Lordships of the Apex Court has been followed in the decision reported in S.M. Ispahani v. Harington House School (2000)2 M.L.J. 154 : (2000)1 C.T.C. 634.

17. In this case, it was already held that the revision petitioners herein have not established that the only intention of the respondent herein is to evict them to sell the same to third party. Financial position of the respondent herein has already been concluded affirmatively in favour of the respondent herein. The age of building, even according to Sankar, Engineer of the respondent, who was examined as R.W.4 before the Rent Controller, was 30 years on the date of the filing of the petition in 1984. Now, we are in 2001. If that be so, the building should be of age not less than 45 years as on today. The condition of the building is not good as already pointed out above. The principle laid down by the Apex Court, followed by this Court in many decisions, would lead to conclude that the three tests laid down by the Apex Court and this High Court to hold whether the requirement of the building is bona fide for the landlord for demolition and reconstruction, have been passed by the landlord. Hence, the concurrent findings given by the courts below that the requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide cannot be interfered with by this Court.

18. learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that there is a direction by the High Court to dispose of the matter remanded to the Rent Controller afresh and such a direction was not complied with since the Rent Control petitions were disposed of with available evidence in the light of the Advocate Commissioner's Report and evidence without any further new evidence, let in by both parties. This Court finds no merits in such contention since there is no direction by the learned single Judge of this Court in the remand order, permitting both parties to let in further oral and documentary evidence before the Rent Control Court.

19. It is relevant to point out that the revision petitioners, who are posing this question has also reported the Rent Control Court in writing that the Civil Revision petitioners have no evidence to let in. The revision petitioners cannot compel the respondent herein to adduce any further oral or documentary evidence before the Rent Controller, while there is no specific direction, permitting him to let in further evidence before the Rent Control Court. The Courts below have come to the above said conclusion after relying on the evidence already on record and in the light of the evidence of Advocate Commissioner and her report and plan submitted before the Rent Control Court.

20. That apart, this Court is sitting in supervisory jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and it cannot re-assess the evidence to come to a different conclusion, if there is a concurrent finding unless illegality or impropriety or irregularity is brought to the notice of this Court in arriving at such concurrent finding.

21. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.

22. In fine, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority are confirmed and the C.R.Ps are dismissed but, in the said circumstances of the cases, without costs. In view of the dismissal of the main C.R.Ps. connected C.M.Ps are closed as unnecessary.

23. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the Revision Petitioners are in occupation of the demised premises for long many years as tenants and therefore, reasonable time may be granted for vacating the demised premises. learned Counsel appearing for the respondent herein is not inclined to agree to give time for more than three months. In view of the said petition, this Court grants three months time to the petitioners to vacate the demised premises on the following conditions:

(1) The rent for the demised premises should be paid regularly by each of the tenant to the landlord without fail and they should also pay the arrears of rent if any, on or before 31.1.2001.

(2) Any of the tenant, should not sub-let or put in possession of premises under their occupation to third party during this period.

(3) The tenant should deliver vacant possession of the demised premises by 10.4.2001 (Tuesday) without fail and without driving the landlord to go to the Execution Court to take delivery of possession.

(4) If any one of the conditions referred to above is flouted the landlord is at liberty to execute the decree stands in his favour.