( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is for quashing an order of the City Municipal Council, Mangaiore, (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Council) which revised the order of the Commissioner of Mangaiore Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the 'commissioner' ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the landlord of certain premises in Mangalore City, while respondent 3 is a tenant therein. On 17-8-1966 the Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioner under sub-sec. (2) of S. 213 of the Mysore municipalities Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in which it was stated, that the western wall of the premises had developed cracks and was likely to fall down endangernig persons occupying the premises as well as the public using the abutting road. The petitioner was called upon to demolish the dangerous portion of the building within 13 days from the date of receipt of the notice. On 23-12-1966, the Commissioner issued to the petitioner another notice in which it was stated that in spite of the earlier notice, the petitioner had not demolished the dangerous portion of the building. The petitioner was required to carry out such demolition within 3 days from the date of receipt of that notice. Copies of the above notices were sent to respondent 3 and she was asked to vacate the premises. She filed a petition, WP. 2726 of 1966, challenging the notice of the Commissioner dt. 23-12-1966. That petition was dismissed by this court by its order dt. 18-12-1967. On 14-8-1968, the Commissioner directed the officials of the Muncipal Council to carry out demolition of the dangerous portion of the building. Accordingly those officials proceeded to carry out such demolition. However, on 16-8-1968 the President of the municipal Council directed them not to proceed with such demolition. Respondent 3 filed a suit, O. S. No. 115 of 1969 on the file of the Munsiff at mangaiore, against the Municipal Council praying for a declaration that the western wall of the building was not in a dangerous condition and that the attempt of the Commissioner to pull down any portion of the building was not bonafide. Respondent 3 filed a suit, O. S. No. 115 of 1969 on the file of the Munsiff at mangaiore, against the Municipal Council praying for a declaration that the western wall of the building was not in a dangerous condition and that the attempt of the Commissioner to pull down any portion of the building was not bonafide. In that suit, the parties thereto filed a joint memo on the basis of which the learned Munsiff passed a decree declaring that the building was no longer in dilapidated condition as certain repairs had been effected to the western wall thereof. However, Despondent 3 (the plaintiff therein) did not press the prayer for a declaration that the action of the Commissioner was not bona fide. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT 3 filed a revision petition before the Municipal Council, against the order of the Commissioner, directing demolition of the building. The Municipal Council, by its resolution dt. 30-4-1969, set aside the order made by the Commissioner directing demolition of a portion of the building. Mr. M. Rama Jois, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has obtained a decree for eviction against respondent 3, under S. 21 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, and that the appeal preferred by respondent 3 herein, is pending before the District Judge, mangalore. ( 4 ) MR. Rama Jois contended. that the resolution of the Municipal Council dt. 30-4-1969 setting aside the order of the Commissioner, was invalid on the following grounds : (a) The order is not a speaking order as no ground for interfering with the direction of the Commissioner has been stated therein; and (b) Before making the impugned order, the Municipal Council did not issue notice to the petitioner herein. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. K. Shivashankara Bhat, learned Counsel for respondent 3 contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the validity of the order of the Municipal Council. Mr. P. Raman, appearing for Mr. S. G. Sundaraswamy, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 (the Municipal Council and the Commissioner), adopted the arguments of Mr. Shiveshankara Bhat. In support of the first ground, Mr. Rama Jois relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Chowgule and Co. v. Union of India, AIR. 1971 SC. 2021. Mr. P. Raman, appearing for Mr. S. G. Sundaraswamy, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 (the Municipal Council and the Commissioner), adopted the arguments of Mr. Shiveshankara Bhat. In support of the first ground, Mr. Rama Jois relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Chowgule and Co. v. Union of India, AIR. 1971 SC. 2021. that the grounds on which a revision application is disposed of should be indicated in the order therein unless that order affirms an order in which grounds therefor have been stated. ( 6 ) THERE is considerable force in the above ground urged by Mr. Rama jois. But unless the petitioner has locus standi to question the order of the Municipal Council, it is unnecessary to consider the grounds urged by mr. Rama, Jois. He, however, contended that the petitioner has sufficient interest to challenge the order of the Municipal Council made in revision, because he wants to demolish the building which is in a dangerous condition. ( 7 ) IF the owner of a building which is occupied by a tenant wants to demolish it on the ground that it is in a dilapidated condition, he (the owner) has independent remedies under law. The powers under S. 213 of the Municipalities Act are intended to be exercised in public interest and not for benefit of the owner of a building who wants to evict his tenant and to obtain possession thereof for purposes of demolition. As a master of fact, the petitioner has obtained a decree for eviction of respondent 3 on the ground that he (the petitioner) wants to demolish the building and to reconstruct it. ( 8 ) I uphold the contention of Mr. Shivashankara Bhat that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the validity of the order made by the Municipal Council in revision. In that view, it becomes unnecessary to go ito the question whether the Municipal Council should have given notice to the petitioner before interfering with the order of the Commissioner. In the result, I dismiss this petition in limina. But in the circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .