Judgment:- The tenant whose eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the petitioner in this petition. The landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner from the fourth shop in premises No. 19-C, Woods Road, Mount Road, Madras, on grounds of wilful default in payment of rent from September, 1961 to March, 1962 and for demolition and reconstruction. We are not concerned in this petition with the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner submitted that the petition for eviction was not bona fide, that it was filed because he refused to pay the higher rent demanded by the landlord and that the landlord had no intention of demolishing the building for the purpose of constructing a new building. The Rent Controller on the evidence came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the building for the immediate purpose of demolishing it with a view to erect a new building on the site. He also found that the intention of the landlord was to remove the roof of the building retaining the side walls and that would amount to demolition within the meaning of section 14(1) (b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller also considered a notice given by the landlord (Exhibit R-1) demanding rent and held that the mere demand of higher rent could not negative the bona fides of the landlord. On appeal, the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and held that the landlord bona fide required the building for the immediate purpose of demolishing it for erecting a new building. He found that the application was bona fide. In this petition, Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the orders of the lower Court are not sustainable as they failed to take into consideration the material circumstances. He submitted that the Small Causes Judge failed to take note of Exhibit R-1, the notice of the landlord demanding higher rent from the petitioner, and that if the lower appellate Court had taken into account that notice, it would have come to the conclusion that the landlord had no bona fides. He submitted that the Small Causes Judge failed to take note of Exhibit R-1, the notice of the landlord demanding higher rent from the petitioner, and that if the lower appellate Court had taken into account that notice, it would have come to the conclusion that the landlord had no bona fides. The lower appellate Court had taken into consideration the evidence in the case and came to the conclusion that the landlord had proposed to demolish the material portion of the building for the purpose of putting up a new structure. The lower appellate Court was also satisfied that the shop occupied by the petitioner had to be demolished for the purpose of constructing a new building. It is not disputed that the landlord had submitted plans and applied to the Corporation for sanction for putting up a staircase and upstairs above the rooms occupied by other tenants. The fact that the landlord demanded twice the rent by Exhibit R-1 would not make any difference in the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate Court. Mr. Radhakrishnan next contended that on the evidence all that was proposed was to demolish the roof of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner retaining the two walls and this would not amount to demolition under section 14(1)(b) of the Act. According to him, the demolition should be total. In support of his contention, he relied on a number of decisions. In P.E. Cadle &38 Co. v. Jacmarch Properties,1 it was held that the landlord’s opposition failed since the Word “reconstruct” in section 39(1)(f) of the Act of 1954 meant “rebuild” and the landlords had not proved an intention to rebuild the whole or a substantial part of the premises comprised in the holding (viz., the ground floor and basement), and an intention to effect a change of identity without a physical reconstruction (viz., such a change as would be caused by combining the three floors of the premises into a larger whole by erecting internal staircases) was not enough. In that case, the tenants were in occupation of the ground floor and basement for the purpose of carrying on business as tobacconists and hairdressers-the front portion was used as a tobacconist shop and the back portion was used as a men’s hairdressers. In that case, the tenants were in occupation of the ground floor and basement for the purpose of carrying on business as tobacconists and hairdressers-the front portion was used as a tobacconist shop and the back portion was used as a men’s hairdressers. To get down to the basement they had to go outside the front door of the shop and down some steps into the basement. It was found that the landlord intended to make the three floors into one self-contained unit and to put inner staircases from the ground floor shop down to the basement, and from the ground floor shop up to the first floor. The landlords also intended to put lavatories on the first floor with all the necessary plumbing. They also intended to make the basement a much better place by putting in a proper floor and doing away with the damp. The County Court Judge, who tried the case, held that the work Intended by the landlords did not amount to reconstruction. The decision is not of much help in deciding this case, as the Court was construing the word “reconstruction” Moreover, on the facts of the case it is not clear as to what the landlord proposed to do with the premises occupied by the tenant. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of Hodson, L.J., where he held that the word "demolish” would clearly involve the physical act of destruction. The learned Counsel would construe it as to mean total destruction of the entire premises. I do not find any warrant for such construction. The learned Counsel relied on a decision reported in Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal,1 and submitted that the fact that the building was not in a dilapidated condition should be taken into consideration for negativing the bona fides of the landlord. This decision does not in any way support the contentions of the learned Counsel. In that case the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Court held taking into consideration the various facts, that the landlord did not require the building for the purpose of demolishing for constructing a new building. The Supreme Court held that the revision Court was in error in interfering with the finding of facts. In that case the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Court held taking into consideration the various facts, that the landlord did not require the building for the purpose of demolishing for constructing a new building. The Supreme Court held that the revision Court was in error in interfering with the finding of facts. In the present case, on the other hand, the Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate Court, taking into consideration all the facts, came to the conclusion that the landlord bona fide required the building for immediate demolition. The learned Counsel also relied on a recent decision of this Court reported in Mehsin Bhai v. Hale &38 Co., Madras2On the strength of the decision the learned Counsel sought to argue that when the building is not old or decrepit, the bona-fides of the landlord has to be ruled out. The learned Judge has not laid down that in the case of a building which is not old and decrepit, the landlord cannot bona fide require it for demolishing for the purpose of erecting a new building. The learned Judge has no doubt stated that such applications, in the case of a building in sound condition, may be made with the ulterior purpose of evicting the tenant. Section 14 (1) (b) confers the right on the landlord to get the tenant evicted if he bona fide requires the building for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and if such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. It is not necessary that the building should be very old and. decrepit to enable the landlord to claim that this immediate purpose was for demolition of the building. All that the subsection requires is that the building should be bona fide required for the immediate purpose of demolishing it, with a view to erecting a new building. If these conditions are satisfied, the landlord is entitled to ask for eviction. The contention of the learned Counsel that the demolition intended, should be total, is not supported by any authority. In this case the roof of the premises that is in the occupation of the petitioner is to be demolished and a staircase put, retaining only the walls. This in my opinion, would amount to demolition. The contention of the learned Counsel that the demolition intended, should be total, is not supported by any authority. In this case the roof of the premises that is in the occupation of the petitioner is to be demolished and a staircase put, retaining only the walls. This in my opinion, would amount to demolition. All the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner fail. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. K.L.B. ---------------- Petition dismissed.