( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order of the First Additional district Judge, Bangalore, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 97 of 1969, setting aside the order of the Principal First Munsiff, Bangalore in HRC. No. 633 of 1963. ( 2 ) PETITIONER before me is the landlord of premises bearing No. 886 situate in Chikpet, Bangalore, and this has been leased out to the respondent-tenant since about 40 years. The petitioner claimed eviction of the respondent under the provisions of S. 21 (1) (j) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He states in paragraph 3 of the petition that "the premises scheduled below is more than 100 years old; the same are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord petitioner for the immediate purpose of erecting a new building after demolish ing the existing one; the petitioner has made all arrangements to do so and has obtained the Corporation licence and the approved plan. . . . " ( 3 ) THE contention of the respondent-tenant was that the building is not more than 100 years old as alleged by the petitioner, nor the claim made by the landlord-petitioner is reasonable and bona fide. It is found from the licence Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-13 that the petitioner and his two sons applied for the grant of licence for the construction of what is styled a 'market' in accordance with the plan Ex. P-2. It may be mentioned that the plan comprises three numbers, i. e. 886, 887 and 888. Premises No. 887 belongs to one nagaraj, grand-son of the petitioner, T. Adirajiah, Premises No. 888 is owned by the second son of Adirajiah. The learned Munsiff held that the petitioner bonafide and reasonably requires the scheduled premises for the immediate purpose of demolition and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building in place of the premises sought to be demolished, and directed the respondent-tenant to vacate and deliver possession of the schedule premises within two months from the date of his order and also directed the petitioner-landlord to commence the work of the demolition within one month thereafter. ( 4 ) ON an appeal filed by the respondent-tenant, the learned District judge reversed the order of the learned Munsiff holding that the landlord has failed to make out ihe case that he has pleaded. Adverting to paragraphs 9 and 14 of the judgment of the learned District Judge, it appears to me that he has riot correctly appreciated the case put forward by the landlord. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the learned District Judge observed as follows: -"if the landlord makes out a case that he wants to demolish because the building has become old, it is for him to prove that case in order to succeed on that ground. If that is the ground made out by the landlord and he fails, it is not for the Court to make out a new case tor him imagining that that might be the ground on which the landlord wants to demolish. "in paragraph 14, he observed as follows:"it emerges as a result of the above discussion that the landlord has neither the present opportunity nor the present means to demolish and reconstruct the building. Further, the landlord has failed to prove the specific ground made out in the petition that the building requires demolition because it has become 100 years old and dilapidated. Thus, the landlord has failed on all the material ingredients of clause (j) of S. 21 (1) of the Act. . . . . "these observations are not borne out by the averments made in paragraph 3 of the petition, which I have set out earlier. It is not because the building is 100 years old, or, that it has become dilapidated, the landlord requires the premises for his own use; it is because, he wants to erect a new building after demolishing the existing one. What he has done is clear from the licence and the plan. As observed in Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal, AIR. 1963 SC. 499. the test that should be applied to find out whether the claim of the landlord is bona fide or not is to consider: (a) condition of the building (b) its situation and (c) its possibility of being put to more profitable use after construction. It appears to me that these tests are answered in the affirmative in this case. 499. the test that should be applied to find out whether the claim of the landlord is bona fide or not is to consider: (a) condition of the building (b) its situation and (c) its possibility of being put to more profitable use after construction. It appears to me that these tests are answered in the affirmative in this case. The building is admittedly constructed over 40 years ago though it may not be 100 years old. It cannot be disputed that the building is situated in a very prominent part of the City. From the plan that is produced before the Court which has been renewed year after year, it is clear that by a new construction in accordance with the plan, the possibility of the property fetching higher income cannot be doubted. Further as held in Panchamal narayana Shenoy v. Basthi Venkatesh Shenoy, (1970) 1 SCWR. 406. it is not necessary to establish that the condition of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition. Therefore, tne approach to the case by the learned district Judge that the landlord has to establish that the building is in a dilapidated condition is neither in accordance with the pleading nor is it a requirement under the law. ( 5 ) IT was further contended by Sri Janardhanam that the landlord has no means to construct the proposed structure. 1 am unable to accept this contention. The landlord has deposed that he nas cash, his sons are earning; he owns a house in Shankarapuram; he has accounts in some banks and the leasehold property is itself worth more than a lakh of rupees. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the landlord has means to put up the proposed structure. According to him, he proposed now to put up a ground floor, estimate for which is 11s. 92,000. The respondent's counsel submitted that there is a mistake in the plan and it is impossible to construct the building in accordance with the plan. A close scrutiny of the plan clearly indicates that the direction given in it is incorrect. The width of the proposed building in the plan is 25' east-west, i. e. , towards the Chik- pet Road and 100' north south. The elevation as shown in the plan clearly denotes that there has been a mistake in giving directions. A close scrutiny of the plan clearly indicates that the direction given in it is incorrect. The width of the proposed building in the plan is 25' east-west, i. e. , towards the Chik- pet Road and 100' north south. The elevation as shown in the plan clearly denotes that there has been a mistake in giving directions. This cannot, in my view, be such an insurmountable defect in the way of the landlord. ( 6 ) IT was further submitted by the respondent's counsel, that under the partition deed of 1952 between tne landlord and his two sons, he is burdened with very heavy liabilities and that there is no proof of his having discharged all those liabilities and therefore it must be inferred that the landlord has no means to put up the proposed structure. I am unable to accept this contention. If the debts were outstanding since 1952, the creditors would not have kept quiet. It would not have been difficult for the lessee to examine some of the creditors to show that the liablities are not discharged. This factor by itself will also not lead to the conclusion that the landlord has no means. In the circumstances of this case, it is clear that there are several ways in which the landlord can raise the funds necessary for putting up the structure. ( 7 ) THE next argument of Sri Janardhanam was that unless premises nos. 887 and 888 are demolished there is no possibility of putting up a structure on premises No. 886 after demolishing it in accordance with the plan. In answer to this contention, Sri S. Nabhirajiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the landlord will have no objection to start demolition of the leasehold premises, viz. , premises bearing Nos. 886, after demolishing the structures now standing on premises bearing Nos. 887 and 888. He has also filed a memo to that effect signed by the landlord. In view of this submission, there is no reason whatsoever to suspect the bona fides of the landlord. The lessee will have the benefit of this undertaking. , premises bearing Nos. 886, after demolishing the structures now standing on premises bearing Nos. 887 and 888. He has also filed a memo to that effect signed by the landlord. In view of this submission, there is no reason whatsoever to suspect the bona fides of the landlord. The lessee will have the benefit of this undertaking. ( 8 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, I set aside the order of the learned District Judge and confirm that of the learned Munsiff, with the modification that the respondent will hand over possession within one year from this date and the petitioner-landlord will commence work of demolition within one month thereafter. This is subject to the undertaking given that the demolition of premises No. 886 will commence only after demolition of premises Nos. 887 and 888. Each party will bear his own costs. --- *** --- .