In all these revision petitions, tenants are the revision petitioners.

2. Landlords sought eviction of tenants on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. According to landlords the building is nearly 70 years old and is in bad condition. There are several cracks all over the building in several places. Plastering are worn out and fell as powder and the building is in ruined condition. The superstructure is constructed with brick in lime and plastered in lime and country wood alone is used for wood works. Building is made of different types of roofings such as Madras terrace. Bengal terrace and A.C. sheet roofing, and it is impossible to maintain the building after repairing or by patch works here and there. It is the further case of landlords that they have got sufficient means and resources to carry out the demolition and reconstruction work. If the building project is completed, the same is beneficial and profitable to both landlord and tenants. After reconstruction, petitioners/landlords want to utilise major portion for their own use and also willing to accommodate some of the tenants for which also provisions are made in the reconstructed building. But they will have to provide rent at the market rate. Landlords requested the tenants of the building to vacate. But since they did not vacate, notice was issued requiring them to vacate the premises. Tenants sent reply refusing to vacate the premises and also disputed the claim of landlords.

3. It is also said that landlords have applied to the local authorities for getting licence and permission is sought for demolition and reconstruction of the building. The statutory undertaking is also given by the landlords.

4. In the various objections raised by the tenants, they disputed the age of the building. According to them, the building is in sound state and do not require reconstruction. They also challenge the means of landlord to put up new construction. They also doubted the bona fides of landlord in not producing the licence for reconstruction.

5. Rent Controller took oral and documentary evidence and on the side of landlords P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. P.W.1 is the third petitioner and P.W.2 is Engineer who prepared the report. On the side of tenants, Engineer who prepared the report alone was examined and none of the tenants entered the box.

6. After evaluating entire evidence, trial court held that landlords have not proved the ingredients of Sec.14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and dismissed all the petitions. Rent Controller held that landlords have not filed licence. It was also of the view that the statement in the petitions that the building is in bad condition is not correct and it gave meaning to bad condition as evil, immoral and dishonesty. Rent Controller held that the building cannot be said as dilapidated. Rent Controller also held that there is lack of bona fides in landlords in view of the fact that they have moved application for fixation of fair rent in the meanwhile. The result of all these discussion was dismissal of eviction petitions on the ground that the claim is not bona fide.

7. Against the said order, landlords preferred appeals before appellate authority and also moved applications to adduce additional evidence. Before appellate authority, plan and licence issued by local authority was also filed. Appellate authority accepted the same as additional evidence and after reappreciating entire evidence held that the claim of landlords is bona fide. Eviction was ordered. It held that for the purpose of reconstruction, building need not be in dilapidated condition or dangerous for human habitation. It further held that means of landlord have been proved and even tenants have no case that landlords got an oblique motive to get rid of the tenants. It also held that the application for fixation of fair rent cannot be said as evidence of bad faith. It only shows that landlord wanted to get the rent which law permits. The claim was found to be bona fide and eviction was ordered. Time was given to tenants to vacate the premises.

8. It is against the said judgment, tenants have preferred all these revision petitions.

9. In the recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal , (1997)1 MLJ. (S.C.) 98: (1996)6 S.C.C. 475 in paras.10 and 11 their Lordships considered the scope of Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which read thus,

10. On reading Sec.14(1)(b) along with Sec.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. Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.16 contemplates that permission has been granted by the Rent Controller under Sec.14(1)(b) for demolition of the building, but if such demolition is not carried out in terms of the order and undertaking, then the Rent Controller can order the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions. If the building is dangerous and dilapidated requiring immediate demolition for safety, then there is no question of the Rent Controller directing the landlord to put the tenant in possession of such building on the original terms and conditions, on account of the failure of the landlord to commence the demolition within the period prescribed. Similarly, there was no occasion to link the demolition of such building with erection of new building and then to give the landlord freedom from the restrictive provisions of the Act for a period of five years from the date on which the construction of such new building is completed and notified to the local authorities concerned. In this background, it has to be held that neither of the extreme position taken by the respondent or the appellants can be accepted. Permission under Sec.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 Sec.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 taken 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 requirements of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Sec.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.

11. It appears from the facts of the present appeals that the building in question was an old one and was situated in a very busy locality of the town where a number of buildings in and around the building in question had been demolished, and shopping complex had been constructed with modern amenities. The respondent also wanted to demolish the entire building in order to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary permission from the municipal authorities had already been obtained. It had also been claimed on behalf of the respondent that she had sufficient financial resources for construction of the new building. An understanding had also been given on behalf of the respondent that the work of demolition of the building would commence within one month and would be completed before the expiry of three months from the date the said respondent recovered possession of the building. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Controller had passed an order in terms of Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act directing the appellants who were tenants in the building in question to deliver possession of the building to the respondent. According to us, all relevant factors have been taken into consideration and there is no scope for any interference by this Court . [Italics supplied]

10. From the above decision it is clear that for the purpose of seeking demolition and reconstruction, building need not be dangerous or unfit for human habitation nor it should be on the verge of collapse. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that on mere asking of landlord that he proposes to demolish the building an order of eviction cannot be passed. It is the bona fides of the claim that has to be considered and for the said purpose, their Lordships have given certain guidelines, which their Lordships themselves have said as not exhaustive.

11. On the basis of the above decision, let me consider whether the claim of landlords is bona fide.

12. Both sides agree that the age of the building is above 60 years on the date of application. In fact, landlords have adduced necessary evidence to show that the building is at least 62 years old on the date of eviction petition. Engineer who inspected the building has also reported that it is more than 60 years old. Evidence of tenants also on the same line.

13. We are only concerned about the physical condition of the building, which is also a relevant consideration while considering the physical strength of the building. It is admitted that the building consist of Madras terrace, Bengal terrace and A.C. roofs. Evidence of P.W.2 has been believed by the appellate authority where it has been found that the building is of class II type. The materials used are not of standard quality and naturally when we consider the physical strength, the materials used for construction is a relevant consideration. Even if the building has been recently constructed, if the materials used are not of good quality, it cannot be said that the building is in good condition. Engineer's report Exs.A-27 and A-28 will show that there are various cracks in the building. P.W.2 has also stated that the bricks that are used for construction has now completely worn out and in many places there are cracks and plastering has also fallen. It has also been found by P.W.2 that the country wood alone has been used in the building for wood works. Finally P.W.2 has also said that the building has outlived its utility and it is highly necessary that the building should be demolished and reconstructed.

14. It must be understood that these engineer's reports are the same that is used by landlords when they moved for fixation of fair rent also. It was very same inspection report that was used by Rent Controller at the time of fixing fair rent. So, there is no inconsistency regarding physical condition of the building whether it be for the purpose of fixation of fair rent or to consider the physical condition of the building. Appellate Authority, on reappreciation of evidence has held that the building is not in good condition.

15. When we consider the condition of the building, it is not the physical strength alone

matters. The amenities provided to the building, whether there are better convenience, whether the existing building can give landlord or tenant better returns when compared to adjoining buildings. Taking into consideration the development of locality whether the existing building can be considered as a good building are all taken into consideration for the said purpose. If on assessment it is found that the building is not in good condition it follows that the building requires demolition and reconstruction.

16. An argument was taken by the learned counsel for petitioners that landlords did not produce plan and licence when they moved rent control petitions. It is true that when the petition was filed, landlords only applied before local authorities for getting sanctioned plan. Necessary fees for getting the plan was also remitted, for which evidence is also produced before the Rent Controller. Till the eviction petition was disposed of, landlords could not obtain plan and licence. But when the matter was taken in appeal, on the very same application local authorities issued licence and permission was also granted. Landlords cannot be blamed for the delay of the department.

17. Merely because landlords filed plan belatedly, that by itself may not be a ground to hold that the application is not in good faith. Law is well settled that plan and licence need not be produced along with the rent control petition. Judicial notice also can be taken that Rent Control proceedings though summary proceeding under Law, to get finality it takes a few decades. In the meanwhile building rules itself are changed. Even if plan and licence is taken initially, it cannot be used for the purpose of reconstruction. Every year the same is to be renewed. Under these circumstances a mere non-production of plan and licence at the time of institution of proceedings cannot be a ground to hold that landlords claim is not bona fide. Appellate authority has considered this point and has come to the conclusion that production of plan and licence before it is valid. The view expressed by appellate authority is correct.

18. I had occasion to consider the very same point in the decision reported in Sherwood Educational Society, etc. v. Abid Namazie and others Sherwood Educational Society, etc. v. Abid Namazie and others Sherwood Educational Society, etc. v. Abid Namazie and others , (1997)1 MLJ. 445: (1997)1 L.W. 323. In that case, I have followed the earlier decision of this Court reported in S.Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan S.Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan S.Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan , 94 L.W. 102. and in paragraphs 24 and 25 I have held thus:

24. Regarding plan and licence, petitioners/landlords themselves have stated that they cannot produce the approved plan at present. A very good reason has been stated therein. The Statute does not say that only if an approved plan is filed before court, eviction could be ordered. It is only one item of evidence to prove the bona fides. In this case, the eviction petition was filed in 1983. Till date, the landlords are not in a position to get possession of the building. Even if the landlords had obtained plan in 1983, the same cannot be made use of at present. Again, the plea is necessary only for the purpose of putting up a construction. That can be had only after physical possession of the property is also obtained. Various changes both in the Laws. Regulations of the Development Authorities in the manner of construction, will have to be taken into construction before the landlords can produce an approval plan. According to me, if blueprints (Exs.P-1 to P-3) are filed and the landlords express their bona fide intention to put up a building on the basis of the approved plan unless there is some oblique motive to doubt their veracity, the same have to be accepted.

25.It was held in S.Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan S.Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan S.Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan , 94 L.W. 102. that:

Want of sanction plan or lack of preparation for the work of demolition and reconstruction by itself cannot negative the bona fides of the landlord. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. Under certain circumstances, it is futile to expect the landlord to make the preparations for demolition and reconstruction on the fond hope of succeeding in his proceedings for eviction. To insist upon such a factor as a sine quo non for initiation of proceedings for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, would drive the landlord to incur expenditure which may turn out to be futile depending upon the ultimate result in the proceedings for eviction.

19. Regarding means of the landlords, both the authorities have held in his favour. It is clear from the evidence that landlords have very good financial capacity having various items of immovable properties and bank deposits. While considering the means of landlords. Courts need only to consider whether landlords got ability to rebuild and court cannot insist that liquid cash should be produced before court. No serious argument was also urged by learned counsel for petitioners challenging the said finding of authorities below.

20. Statutory undertaking is also given by landlords that they will demolish the building within the stipulated period after getting possession.

21. When landlords establish all the grounds under Sec.14(1)(b), a presumption arises in his favour that his claim is bona fide It is for tenants to disprove that presumption by adducing contra evidence. In a recent decision of this Court reported in Central Hameedia Stores v. Valliammal alias Rajammal , (1996)2 L.W. 720 a learned Judge of this Court held that if no contra evidence is let in by tenants, nothing wrong in authorities below in believing the evidence of landlord and ordering eviction. In this case, except the evidence of D.W.1 who is the Engineer, none of the tenants have entered the box and challenged the version of landlords when they have spoken about the ingredients under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act.

22. The only other argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that landlords moved an application for fixation of fair rent with an intention to get higher rent. That shows that even from the existing building landlords will be getting better returns and present attempt is only a pretext for eviction. Learned counsel submitted that the intention of landlords is to let out the building for higher rent otherwise they would not have moved for fixation of fair rent.

23. I do not find any merit in the said submission. By moving application for fixation of fair rent, tenants cannot assume that the intention of landlords is to get higher rent. By filing application for fixation of fair rent, landlord is only moving the court to enable him to get the rent which is legally permissible. It is not the demand of landlords to get higher rent but he takes the assistance of court and wanted adjudication as to what is the rent payable for the building according to law. That is why statute itself says Fair Rent . If on the existing condition landlords are entitled to get better return, they cannot be blamed for moving court and have the fair rent fixed. Law does not say that if building is not; in good condition, tenants must be occupied at free of rent or it should be on lesser rent. If tenant wants to occupy the building on rent, he must also be prepared to pay the rent legally payable. The bona fides of landlords cannot be doubted merely because they moved an application for fixation of fair rent. As stated earlier, it was the very same Engineer's report relied on for fixation of fair rent and also for demolition and reconstruction. Landlords cannot be blamed that they are taking two different standards and the claim is inconsistent. The said contention is also rejected.

24. Except for moving application for fixation of fair rent, none of the tenants have case that landlords got oblique motive in moving these petitions. Landlords are not choosing one tenant or the other. They want to evict all the tenants in the building and put up new construction. When there is no oblique motive and when landlords also proved all the statutory conditions, the claim can only be found as bona fide.

25. In the result, the judgment of appellate authority is confirmed and all these revision petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.