JUDGMENT: — The civil revision petitioner before this Court is a tenant in respect of the premises bearing door No 9 in Ellaiyamman West St., Thiruvarur. The landlady, the petitioner in R. C. O. P. 26 of 1977, who is the respondent herein, filed the petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that she required the premises for demolition and reconstruction. In support of her case she has produced the licence given by the Municipal authorities for the demolition and reconstruction of both the premises, viz., door Nos. 9 and 9-A, which is marked as Exhibit A-4. Exhibit A-3 is the blue print plan showing the proposed reconstruction of the petition-mentioned premises. Exhibit A-5 is the miscellaneous receipt evidencing the payment of licence fee in respect of Exhibit A-4 to the Thiruvarur Municipality. Apart from producing the licence given by the municipal authorities for the reconstruction of the premises in question, the landlady's father was examined as P. W. No. 1, before the Rent Controller to prove the bona fide requirement of the landlady. P. W. No.1 in his evidence had stated that the landlady is in possession of sufficient funds for the demolition and reconstruction work, that she has got a fixed deposit with Indian Overseas Bank, and that she had also obtained the permission from the Municipal Council for demolition and reconstruction of the petition-mentioned building. 2. The tenant in his counter-statement merely stated that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide, that the landlady already obtained possession of the other half of the premises, bearing door No. 9-A on the ground that she required it for her own occupation and that she had let out the same to one Shanmugham. From these averments the tenant wanted to infer that the landlady's claim for eviction for demolition and reconstruction is not a bona fide one. 3. The learned Rent Controller found that the claim of the landlady is not bona fide and dismissed the petition while the Appellate Authority disagreed with the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal and found that the landlady's claim for eviction, on the ground that she required it for demolition and reconstruction, is bona fide. It is as against the judgment of the appellate authority this civil revision petition is filed. 4. In this revision, Mr. It is as against the judgment of the appellate authority this civil revision petition is filed. 4. In this revision, Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two contentions, in support of his argument that the decision of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. The first of the contentions raised is that there is no finding by the appellate court that the premises in question is an old one and requires demolition and reconstruction. Another contention put forth by the learned counsel is that the lower appellate Court ought to have come to the conclusion that the claim of the landlady is not bona fide since she had not taken possession of the other half of the premises bearing door No. 9-A. 5. In support of his first contention the learned counsel vehemently argued that the learned Subordinate Judge while ordering eviction on the ground that the building is required for demolition and reconstruction must have found that the building in question is an old one which requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied on a decision reported in Metalware and Co. v. BanSilal1. No doubt in that case, the Supreme Court has observed as follows — “Having regard to the above discussion on the construction of section 14 (1) (b) of the Act, particularly in the light of its scheme. we are clearly of the view that the existing condition of the building far from being totally irrelevant is a vital factor which will have to be considered while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord under that provision which has to be done by having regard to ‘all the circumstances’ and since in the instant case all the Courts have totally ignored this vital factor we feel that their conclusion on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord deserves to be set aside.” It is on this observation the learned counsel for the revision petitioner places reliance and urges that inasmuch as there is no finding that the building is an old one, the matter will have to be remanded to the appellate Court to find out whether the premises in an old one and requires demolition as such. 6. 6. The original petition seeking eviction, came to be filed under section 14 (1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960. Under this section the landlord can file an application if he bona fide requires the building for immediate purposes of demolition and reconstruction and for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. Hence, the landlord is bound to prove only his bona fide in respect of the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction. 7. In this case the landlady has come forward with an application stating that she bona fide required the building for demolition and reconstruction, that she had obtained necessary licence from the Municipality by remitting necessary licence fee and that she had the requisite amount in deposit with the Indian Overseas Bank to meet the expenses towards demolition and reconstruction of the building. 8. As against this claim of the landlady, the tenant has not stated anything either in the counter or in the evidence, that the building is a recent construction or that it is in a good condition and that it does not require to be demolished In the absence of such a plea, it is not necessary for the landlady to show that the building is an old and dilapidated one. In the Supreme Court decision cited above a specific plea is taken by the tenant stating that the building is not an old building and that the claim of the landlord that he required it for demolition and reconstruction in not bona fide. Only in cases where such a plea is raised, the Court is bound to investigate into the condition of the building and come to the conclusion whether the building is an old one and whether the claim of the landlord is a bona fide one. In the absence of such a plea, in this case, there is no need for the lower appellate Court deciding the bona fide requirement of the landlady to ascertain whether the building is old or not. In the absence of a plea regarding the nature of the building, only the other pleas put forward by the landlady have to be examined with regard to the bona fides of her claim for eviction. In the absence of a plea regarding the nature of the building, only the other pleas put forward by the landlady have to be examined with regard to the bona fides of her claim for eviction. Hence, on this point, I have no hesitation in rejecting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as there is no plea to support his argument, and in the absence of a plea the lower appellate Court is not expected to give a finding regarding the nature of the building. 9. The second contention of the learned counsel is that the claim of the landlady is not bona fide since she has not already taken possession of the other half of the premises bearing door No. 9-A. The tenant in his evidence before the lower Court had not stated anything in this regard. The landlady's father who was examined as P. W. 1, had stated that the other tenant Shanmugham who is occupying door No. 9-A had undertaken to deliver possession of the premises in three months so as to enable the landlady to demolish and reconstruct the building. This assertion of P.W.1 is not denied by the tenant in his evidence. We have to base our decision only on the evidence of P. W. 1 that the tenant Shanmugham who is in occupation of door No. 9-A had under taken to vacate the premises in three months. So, the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained. 10. Taking the evidence, documentary and oral as a whole, the landlady has proved her bona fides by obtaining a licence from the Municipal Council for demolition and reconstruction and by remitting the required licence fee and that P. W. 1 had also deposed with reference to the means of the landlady stating that she had requisite funds for demolition and reconstruction of the building. The tenant had not established any circumstance to support his case that there is no bona fide in the claim of the landlady. Considering all the circumstances, this is not a fit case where the conclusion of the appellate Court can be interfered with. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Considering all the circumstances, this is not a fit case where the conclusion of the appellate Court can be interfered with. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. However, since the tenant is a businessman having a godown in the premises in question, three months time will have to be granted for effecting delivery of possession. S. J. ----- Petition dismissed.