ORDER Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The above civil revision petition by the landlord is directed against the order of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Appellate Authority) in R.C.A. No. 547 of 1985, reversing the order of eviction passed by the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P. No. 3714 of 1983 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of I960 hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows: - The proceedings relate to four shops situate in door No. 99, Waltax Road, Park town, Madras. The petitioner as landlady filed the application under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, against the respondent and three other tenants, each of whom was occupying one shop in the above door Number. Eviction was sought on the ground that the building was more than 70 years old and had developed cracks in many places and the walls were in a dangerous condition. The structure was tiled and the entire building was in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction. Two of the tenants agreed to vacate the premises and had, in fact, vacated. One of the tenants, though initially had filed a counter did not press the same and ultimately vacated the premises. The present respondent alone who is in possession of one shop resisted the landlady's action for eviction. In his counter, the respondent alleged that the age of the building was exaggerated and at any rate the petitioner was put to strict proof that the building was more than 70 years old and that the building was at the most aged only 40 years and was in a sound condition and did not require demolition. It was not admitted that the building was a tiled structure. The request for demolition and reconstruction was not bona fide since an earlier petition seeking eviction of the respondent on the group of sub-letting had been unsuccessful, the present petition had been filed with ulterior motive. 3. Before the Rent Controller, the husband of the petitioner was examined as P.W. 1, and an Engineer, who inspected the petition premises, was examined, as P.W.2. Exs. P1 and P2 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On the side of the respondent his brother was examined as R.W. 1 and R.Ws. 3. Before the Rent Controller, the husband of the petitioner was examined as P.W. 1, and an Engineer, who inspected the petition premises, was examined, as P.W.2. Exs. P1 and P2 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On the side of the respondent his brother was examined as R.W. 1 and R.Ws. 2 and 3 were also examined. Ex. R1 was marked on the side of the respondent. 4. Learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of the materials before him, found that the age of the building was about 107 years and was, therefore, in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition and the petitioner had proved that she had sufficient funds to carry out the work of demolition and reconstruction and that, therefore, the requirement of the petitioner was bona fide and rejecting the contention of the respondent, ordered eviction. Learned Appellate Authority, before whom the respondent took the matter on appeal, concurred with the learned Rent Controller that the petitioner had sufficient means to carry out the task of demolition and reconstruction, but found that since the petitioner had merely produced a permit from the Corporation authorities for demolition of the building, but did not produce the approved plan of the Corporation for the proposed reconstruction, the requirement of the petitioner could not be said to be bona fide and on that finding set aside the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal. Hence the present revision by the aggrieved landlady. 5. Thiru M. Raghavan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the only ground on which the learned Appellate Authority had reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller viz., that the petitioner had failed to produce the sanctioned plan from the local authorities for the proposed reconstruction, was legally untenable in view of the repeated pronouncements of this Court to the contrary. Having found that there was evidence regarding the age of the building and having found that the petitioner had proved substantial means to demolish and reconstruct, the order of the learned Appellate Authority reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller en the only ground that the plan had not been filed was illegal and therefore justified interference by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 6. 6. By way of abundant caution, an application had been taken out by the petitioner in C.M.P. No. 5958 of 1986, under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C, to receive as additional evidence the document viz., extension order for permission for demolition and reconstruction issued by the Corporation of Madras showing that the plan for reconstruction had been sanctioned by the Corporation by permit dated 1.8.1985, 7. Per contra : Thiru S.C Shah Learned Counsel for the, respondent, objected to the receipt of additional evidence produced by the petitioner on the ground that if the. same was permitted, the respondent should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness with reference to the above document and that the matter should then be remitted to the court below for providing him with the above opportunity. Learned Counsel also submitted that failure to produce the sanctioned plan for the proposed reconstruction would be a very relevant circumstance indicating lack of bona fides of the requirement and that, therefore, the order of the learned Appellate Authority reversing the order of eviction on the above ground was correct and should be upheld. 8. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the order of the learned Appellate Authority suffers from any illegality calling for interference by this Court under its revisionsal jurisdiction. 9. It is seen from Ex. P12, which is a sale deed dated 29.3.1956 of the petition premises that the present building has been in existence even on 7.12.1986. That would take the age of the present building to 107 years. P.W. 2 the Engineer who had issued Exs. P10 and P11, after visiting the petition premises, has stated that he estimates the age of the building between 70 to 75 years, that the building has been constructed with brick and mortar and country tiles and because of the cracks in walls there were signs of rain water having leaked into the building and in several places plastering from the walls had come away and the beams had been eaten by white ants and the flooring was in a very bad condition and the building itself was unfit for human habitation. His evidence is in conformity with his report Ex. P11 supported by a detailed plan with measurements Ex. P10. Added to this, is the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the condition of the building, Ex. His evidence is in conformity with his report Ex. P11 supported by a detailed plan with measurements Ex. P10. Added to this, is the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the condition of the building, Ex. P5 is a notice issued by the Corporation of Madras to the petitioner dated 27.5.1983 under Section 246(A) of the Madras City Municipal Act, granting permission to the petitioner to demolish the existing building. As against that, on the side of the respondent, his brother has been examined and the respondent has not chosen to offer oral evidence. To Ex. P1, which is a notice dated 24.7.1983 sent by the petitioner to all the respondents in the eviction petition, requiring possession of the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, the respondent herein has not chosen to send any reply. The evidence of 'R.W. 1 cannot be put against the substantial evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner. It is also significant that the respondent himself has not chosen to file Ex. R1 which is a notice issued by the Corporation of Madras to the respondent under -Section 258 of the Madras City Municipal Act, IV of 1919, requiring the respondent to repair the petition premises since the same was in a ruinous state or dangerous to passers by or to the occupier of neighbouring structure and failure to do the same would entail criminal prosecution. It, therefore, follows from the facts set out above, that the condition of the building is old and dilapidated calling for immediate demolition for the purpose of reconstruction. 10. Exs. P6 to P9 prove the financial ability of the petitioner. Exs. P6 is a deposit receipt dated 12.3.1984, issued by the Punjab National Bank, Triplicane, Madras in the name of the petitioner showing a fixed deposit of Rs. 50,000, maturing on 12.3.1985. Ex. P7 is a similar receipt from the Bank also in favour of the petitioner dated 19.3.1984, for sum of Rs. 50,000 maturing on 19.3.1986. Exs. P8 and P9 are the certificates issued by the above Bank for Exs. P6 and P7. These indicate that the petitioner has substantial financial means to undertake the task of demolition and reconstruction and the concurrent findings of both courts below to that effect are correct. 11. 50,000 maturing on 19.3.1986. Exs. P8 and P9 are the certificates issued by the above Bank for Exs. P6 and P7. These indicate that the petitioner has substantial financial means to undertake the task of demolition and reconstruction and the concurrent findings of both courts below to that effect are correct. 11. It is true that when the enquiry was on before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner had not produced any plan sanctioned by the Corporation authorities for the proposed reconstruction. Ex. P5 is only a permission for demolition. Learned Appellate Authority, therefore, found that the requirement, of the petitioner lacked bona fides/on account of her failure to produce the sanctioned plan for reconstruction. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on certain decisions, which I shall refer to presently. The first of them is the decision of Ramanujam, J. in Ramanatha Iyer v. Bathul Bai (1971) 2 M.L.J. 38 : 84 L.W. 578, wherein the learned Judge has held that it cannot be said that in all cases whenever an application for demolition and reconstruction is made, a prior sanction of the Municipality should have been obtained, since the Act nowhere provides that a petition for demolition and reconstruction should be made only after getting the required sanction from the Municipality. There was evidence in that case that the landlord had already applied for sanction from the Municipality and that showed that he had taken all preliminary steps for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, which was sufficient to show bona fides. In the instant case also, P.W. 1 has specifically stated in his evidence, that he had already applied to the Corporation for a plan for reconstruction. 12. The above decision of Ramanujam, J. has been approved and followed by Nainar Sundaram, J. in Pappu Am mal v. Lab Chemicals, Ramanujam, J. has reiterated the same view and observed as follows: I do not see how the obtaining of a plan subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition will show that the requirement of the premises by the landlady for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. Finally in Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan (1981) 94 L.W. 102, Nainar Sundaram, J., has observed that it cannot be laid down as a general rule that in all cases of demolition and reconstruction prior sanction should have been obtained and that in the light of Ex. Finally in Balasubramaniam v. Gulab Jan (1981) 94 L.W. 102, Nainar Sundaram, J., has observed that it cannot be laid down as a general rule that in all cases of demolition and reconstruction prior sanction should have been obtained and that in the light of Ex. A1 in that case, which was a notice issued by the Panchayat authorities calling upon the landlord to demolish the building since it was dangerous to the public, the existing condition of the building was clearly borne out, this would substantiate the bona fides of the landlord. It is significant that in the instant case, similar to Ex. A1, in the case referred to above Ex. R1 notice has been issued by the Corporation authorities. It follows, therefore, that the view of the learned Appellate Authority that bona fides ought to be negatived, merely from the failure on the part of the petitioner to obtain sanction prior to the filing of the petition for eviction, cannot be sustained. Several factors go to make out the mental state of bona fides. In the instant case, the condition of the building that it requires immediate demolition, the financial ability of the petitioner and the fact that three out of the four tenants had voluntarily vacated the premises, would clearly indicate that the requirement of the petitioner is bona fide. Contrary view taken by the learned Appellate Authority, not being in consonance with the various pronouncements of this Court, referred to above, cannot be legally sustained. 13. I see no reason to reject the request of the petitioner seeking permission to produce the document filed along with C.M.P. No. 5958 of 1986 as additional evidence. C.M.P. No. 5958 of 1986 is allowed and the document will be marked as EX. P13. Ex. P13 shows that the Corporation has sanctioned the plan for reconstruction by permit dated 1.8.1985. 14 In the result, the revision is allowed with costs, the order of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside and the order of the learned Rent Controller is restored. 15. The Learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant requests two months time to vacate the premises on filing an affidavit reserving his right to move the matter before the Supreme Court. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner landlady is also present. 15. The Learned Counsel for the respondent-tenant requests two months time to vacate the premises on filing an affidavit reserving his right to move the matter before the Supreme Court. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner landlady is also present. Six weeks time from today is granted to the respondent to vacate the premises on his filing an affidavit, subject to reserving his right to the Supreme Court. Affidavit to be filed on or before 3.2.1987.