ORDER Srinivasan, J. 1. The tenant who failed before both the authorities below has filed this revision petition challenging the order for eviction passed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 2. It is urged on behalf of the tenants that the building in question is a new building having been constructed in 1978. Reliance is placed upon the deposition of P.W.1 to the effect that he constructed the first floor in 1978. It is argued that if the building had been in a dilapidated condition as alleged in the petition for eviction, the landlord would not have constructed the first floor. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that he had construction with asbestos sheets. It is seen from the report of the advocate commissioner, the evidence of C.W.1 and C.W.2 and also the evidence of R.W.3, an engineer examined by the tenants that the putting of two rooms in the first floor is asbestos sheet and one room is of tiles. It cannot fee inferred from the fact that a temporary construction has been effected in the first floor in 1978 that the ground floor is in a very strong condition. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the building was in existence even at the time. It is the estimate of C.W.1 and C.W.2 that the building is about 70 years old. On the side of the tenants, RWS has given a report and also given evidence that the building is about 50 to 60 years old. Even assuming that the building is only about 50 years old, that will not mean that the building is in a very strong condition, hence the contention that the building is of a recent construction has to fail. 3. It is also seem from the report of the advocate commissioner and the evidence of D.W. 1 that the building is in a dilapidated condition, the flooring is in a damaged condition and the rafters in most of the places have been eaten by white-ants. There are cracks in the walls. Reliance is placed by the tenants on the evidence of P. W.3. It is contended that R.W.3 has not been cross-examined with regard to his evidence that the building is in strong condition. There are cracks in the walls. Reliance is placed by the tenants on the evidence of P. W.3. It is contended that R.W.3 has not been cross-examined with regard to his evidence that the building is in strong condition. A perusal of the evidence of R.W.3 shows that he had not taken care to mention in his report all the details of the building, nor the measurement and the relevant matters have been noted, he admits that his evidence is not complete in the sense that all relevant matters have not been noted. I do not find any reason to differ from the conclusion or the Courts below that the building is in a bad condition and requires to be demolished. 4. The next contention urged by learned Counsel for petitioners is that there is one other tenant in the premises and no eviction proceedings had been taken against him. In the petition for eviction, there is an averment that there is no other tenant excepting the respondent in the R.C.O.P. In the counter statement filed by the tenant, there is a denial and it is stated that there is another tenant in a portion of the ground floor of the petition premises who is running a scooter/motor cycle repair shop. When P.W.1 was in the box, no suggestion was put to him that there was another tenant in a portion of the ground floor. The first petitioner has a given evidence as P.W.1. He has stated in his chief examination that there is another tenant scooter mechanic. Significantly, R.W.1 has not given the name of the other tenant. Nor has he given any particulars with regard to the other tenant. It is stated that no cross examination has been made by learned Counsel for the landlord when R.W.1, the tenant has stated that there is another vacant portion in the ground floor. I do not think that there is any necessity for such cross examination when the tenants have not chosen to make any suggestion to P.W.1 that there is another tenant in the ground floor and they have not given any details regarding the other tenant. Hence this contention also has to fail. 5. The third contention is that the landlord has not obtained any estimate of the cost of the proposed construction and that it will show that there is no bona fide in his petition. Hence this contention also has to fail. 5. The third contention is that the landlord has not obtained any estimate of the cost of the proposed construction and that it will show that there is no bona fide in his petition. Reliance is placed upon the fact that P.W.1 has stated that cost of new construction would come to Rs. 1,50,000. An argument is advanced that an estimate has not been obtained by the landlord prior to his filing the petition for eviction and hence his bona fides cannot be accepted by the court. I do not find any necessity for obtaining an estimate before filing the petition for eviction. On the other hand, the landlord has got a plan prepared for the proposed construction and filed the same as an exhibit. He has also obtained the sanction of the corporation for the plan and he is renewing same from time to time expecting an order of eviction in these proceedings. Hence, this contention is of no merit. 6. The fourth contention is that the petition against the tenants with regard to three tenancies is not maintainable as a single petition, it is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the landlord should have filed different petitions against with respect to each tenancy. I do not agree with this contention. There is no law which says that there should be an independent petition with regard to each tenancy. Here, the two tenants are husband and wife and they have taken different portions of the premises under three tenancies. The purposes for which the building is required by the landlord is for demolition and reconstructions. The entire building is sought to be demolished by the landlord. Hence, a single petition for eviction of the tenants with regard to three tenancies is a maintainable in law. 7. The fifth contention urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord version that he is earning about Rs. 20,000 per annum by running a provision store is not substantiated by sufficient evidence. According to learned Counsel, there should be a licence for running a provision store and such a licence has not been produced by the landlord. Actually, the landlord has given evidence to the effect that he is doing business as a broker of precious stones. He has not stated that he is conducting a provision stores. According to learned Counsel, there should be a licence for running a provision store and such a licence has not been produced by the landlord. Actually, the landlord has given evidence to the effect that he is doing business as a broker of precious stones. He has not stated that he is conducting a provision stores. I do not think that it is relevant in this case as the landlord has filed sufficient documentary evidence to prove that he has got enough means to demolish the building and reconstruct the same. He has filed documents showing that he has fixed deposits in banks. 8. Both the authorities below have considered the entire evidence on record and come to the conclusion that all the necessary conditions laid down by the supreme court in Metalware & Co., v. Bensilal Sharma and Ors. , have been fulfilled in his case. 9. Learned Counsel invites my attention to the decision of K.M. Natarajan, J, in J.D. Devadoss (died) and Ors. v. V. Srikanthiah 99 L.W. 78 and submit that the landlord is bound to examine an independent witness apart from the advocate commissioner and the Engineer who had inspected the premises. He relied upon the following observations made in that case. In this case also, except the interested testimony of the respondent herein, as P.W.1 the respondent herein has not let in any evidence by examining the qualified engineer or commissioner to show that the building is in dilapidated condition and that it requires immediate demolition, and reconstruction. The mere fact that the building is old itself not sufficient for invoking the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and ordering eviction. The respondent herein had also not examined any other independent witness to support his claim. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is not sufficient for the landlord to examine an engineer but he must also examine another independent witness in addition to the engineer. I do not think that the judgment relied on by him lays down any such proposition. In that case nobody else excepting the landlord was examined. The learned Judge while rejecting that as interested evidence pointed out that the landlord has not even examined a qualified engineer. He had also stated that the landlord had also not examined any independent witness to support his claim. In that case nobody else excepting the landlord was examined. The learned Judge while rejecting that as interested evidence pointed out that the landlord has not even examined a qualified engineer. He had also stated that the landlord had also not examined any independent witness to support his claim. That does not mean that the landlord who wants to get an order of eviction should examine himself, a qualified engineer and also an additional independent witness. That is not the proposition which could be gathered from that decision. That judgment does not in any way help the petitioner in this case. 10. In the result, all the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner fail and the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioners will pay the costs of this revision petition to the respondent. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to vacate the premises. Learned Counsel for the landlord is agreeable to give six months time on condition that the petitioners file an affidavit of under taking to vacate the premises within the said period. 12. The petitioners are permitted to vacate the premises on or before 15-7-1988 on condition that the petitioners should file an affidavit is this Court within two weeks from this date undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 15-7-1988 without driving the landlord to execution proceedings and also that they should pay the rent regularly till they vacate the premises.