This revision petition arises from the decree passed by the Assistant District Judge in Title Appeal No. 45 of 1984 dismissing the appeal from the decree passed in Title Suit No. 116 of 1983 by Sadar Munsiff, Tezpur. 2. The plaintiff-landlord instituted the suit against the defendant-tenant on the ground that the tenant is a defaulter and the suit premises are bonafide required by the landlord urgently for his own use and occupation by renovating the same as the whole of the house is severely damaged and is a dilapidated one. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the tenant is a defaulter, and that the suit premises are bona fide required by the landlord. The lower appellate Court has held that the tenant is not a defaulter. As regards the bona fide requirement for personal use, the appellate Court has also decided against the landlord by holding that the defendant-tenant is not liable to be evicted on the- ground of personal occupation of the landlord. However, the lower appellate Court has held that the tenant is liable to be evicted as the suit premises are required for reconstruction after demolishing the existing one. Hence this petition. 4. In para 3 of the plaint it is stated : "That moreover the said premises including the whole building is required by the plaintiff urgently for his own use and occupation by renovating the same as the whole building containing the rooms stands severely damaged and in dilapidated condition. The Chairman Biswaoath Charali Town Committe.- also vide his Notice dated 21.2.80 has ordered the plaintiff to reconstruct the said building immediately by demolishing the existing one", (emphasis is mine) 5. Mr. T.C. Khetri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has con­tended that the requirement for renovation is not a ground for eviction of the tenant under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 6. Mr. T.C. Khetri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has con­tended that the requirement for renovation is not a ground for eviction of the tenant under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 6. Section 5 (l)(c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 which provides : "Where the house is bona fide required by the landlord either for purpose of repairs or rebuilding, or for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house is held, or where the landlord can show any other cause which may be deemed satisfactory by the court;" In view of section 5 (1) (c) of the Act, the requirement of the landlord can be either for repairs or rebuilding. The two words 'repairs' and 'rebuilding' are used disjunctively and, therefore, it must be assumed that the legislatures have used the two words to express two different and separate meanings. The word 'repair' means to restore to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation, or partial destruction In Greg vs. Planque, (1936) I KB 669 at page 677 it is stated that the word 'repair' means the making of good defects, including renewal where that is necessary". In the case of rebuilding, the building itself demolished and a new building is constructed on the site. According to the dictionary the word 'renovate' means to renew, make over or repair or newness of appearance. In the course of the renovation a part of the building may be demolished and reconstructed on that site. Therefore, renovation is not restricted to the repairs only but it includes demolition of building for construction of another building on the same site. 7. In view of the meanings of the words 'repair', 'rebuilding' and 'renovation' the repair may be included in renovation in certain circumstances. However, the renovation does not necessarily mean repairs only .as the demolition and reconstruction would not be within the meaning of repairs. 8. It is settled that the pleading should receive a liberal constru­ction and not hair technicalities. A reading of the above quoted passage of para 3 of the plaint shows that the case of the plaintiff is of reconstruction. Therefore, the contention of Mr. T.C. Khetri cannot be sustained. 9. The next contention of Mr. 8. It is settled that the pleading should receive a liberal constru­ction and not hair technicalities. A reading of the above quoted passage of para 3 of the plaint shows that the case of the plaintiff is of reconstruction. Therefore, the contention of Mr. T.C. Khetri cannot be sustained. 9. The next contention of Mr. Khetri is that the lower appellate Court has not given findings about the 'bona fide' and that for the bona fide requirement of reconstruction, the landlord must satisfy the Court that the landlord has sufficient fund or means and steps taken in that regard. Mr. Khetri has referred me to a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Panchmal vs. Basthi Senoy, AIR 1971 SC 942 and has relied on the following observations; "No doubt as to whether the landlord's requirement is reasonable and bona fide has to be judged by the surrounding circumstances, which will include his means for re- construction of the building, and other steps taken by him in that regard." The above observation made by Supreme Court has to be read in the context of that case and the scheme of the Mysore Rent Control Act. In my opinion, the expression 'bona fide' means 'honest' in the context. The bona fide requirement under the Act is to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has to take into account all the surrounding circumstances including not merely having sufficient means or funds of the landlord for reconstruction and also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation. In a sense, if the building happens to be dilapidated, it may be one of the circumstances for bona fide requirement of the landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any means or funds of the landlord for reconstruction would not be sufficient. In other words, a landlord having means or funds for reconstruction after demolishing the building by itself may not be sufficient to .establish his bona fide requirement if the building happens to be of a very recent construction. Sufficient funds or means and other steps such as sanctioned plans from the concerned authority may be relevant factor for establishing bona fide requirement, if there is no oblique motive. What is to be established is the honest requirement in the circumstances. 10. Sufficient funds or means and other steps such as sanctioned plans from the concerned authority may be relevant factor for establishing bona fide requirement, if there is no oblique motive. What is to be established is the honest requirement in the circumstances. 10. Keeping the above principle in view, let me examine the case on hand. The lower appellate Court has held that the suit house is required by the landlord for reconstruction, but he has not given finding whether the requirement is bona fide. That apart, assuming that the suit house is in a dilapidated one, that by itself in the absence of any means or funds for the reconstruction would not be sufficient to evict a tenant, The landlord has not led evidence to show that he has means or funds for reconstruction. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside. The suit is dismissed. No costs.