Judgment :- The respondents in R.C.O.P.No.93 of 1983 on the file of the Rent (Principal District Munsif), Coimbatore are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given in the R.C.O.P. 2. The petitioner filed an application for eviction against the respondents under Secs.l4(i)(b) and 14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.93 of 1983 is as The first respondent is a registered firm whose present partners are respondents 2 Formerly the second respondent and F.Mohamed Hussain were partners of the firm. death of F.Mohamed Hussain, the third respondent herein has become the partner along the second respondent in the respondents/firm. The respondents 4 to 9 are the legal the deceased partners of F.Mohamed Hussain. The petitioner purchased the mentioned property on 19.9.1974 and at the time of purchase it was subject usufructuary mortgage deed dated 14.5.1967 executed by the petitioner’s vendor in of one Rahman Sheriff, who was in possession of the petition mentioned property as fructuary mortgagee. The deceased F.Mohamed Hussain was the tenant in respect petition mentioned property under the usufructuary mortgagee in the first instance and on after the redemption of the usufructuary mortgage the said Mohamed Hussain became the tenant under the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner filed an application for eviction the said F.Mohamed Hussain in R.C.O.P.No.327 of 1975 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore on the ground that the petitioner required the petition mentioned property his own use and for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The respondent R.C.O.P.No.327 of 1975 contested the application, but, finally submitted to an order of eviction and took time to vacate the building. Before the petitioner execute the order of eviction obtained by him in R.C.O.P.No.327 of 1975 the respondents to 3 filed a suit O.S.No.518 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Coimbatore, declaration that the first respondent - firm was the tenant of the petition mentioned and the order of eviction, obtained against Mohamed Hussain in his individual capacity R.C.O.P.No.327 of 1975 was not binding on respondents 1 to 3 and prayed for the injunction. In the suit the respondents 1 to 3 also raised the contentions that what was on lease was only a site and not the building. The civil court negatived the plea respondents 1 to 3 that the original lease was in respect of the site alone, but held lease was in respect of both the site as well as the building. It was further held in O.S.No.518 of 1979 that the tenant of the petition mentioned property is the first respondent not the individual, Mohamed Hussain. As per the decision of the civil court in O.S.No.518 1979 the petitioner is a landlord and the first respondent - firm and its partners are with regard to the petition mentioned premises. The petition mentioned building is an substantial one. The petitioner purchased the property primarily for the site value with to put up thereat a new structure after pulling down the existing structure for a better profitable investment and increased return on such investment. 3. The respondents resisted the application for eviction contending as follows: Respondents are the owners of the superstructure described in the petition and the is only the owner of the vacate site and that the first respondent is entitled to the benefits the Tamil Nadu City Tenants ’ Protection Act. As there is a bona fide dispute regarding title to the superstructure, the application for eviction filed before the Rent Controller the provisions of the Act is not maintainable. The petition mentioned vacant site was out by the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title in the year 1955 to one Arunachalam one Kasim Sahib, who are the predecessors-in-title of the first respondent-firm having superstructure therein are in continuous possession as tenants of the demised vacant and as owners of the superstructure. The building in question is in good condition and not require immediate demolition for reconstruction and the petitioner’s requirement demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. 4. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner has title to the superstructure; respondents have not proved that they are the owners of the superstructure and lease is in respect of both the land and the building and that the petition for eviction before the Rent Controller is maintainable. The Rent Controller further found petitioner’s requirement of the petition mentioned building for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and consequently passed an order of eviction. The Rent Controller further found petitioner’s requirement of the petition mentioned building for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and consequently passed an order of eviction. As against the order of Controller the respondents filed an appeal, R.C.A.No.89 of 1988 before the Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller petitioner has title to both the vacant land as well as to the building and respondent’s denial of the petitioner’s title to the superstructure is not bona therefore, the petition for eviction filed under the provisions of the Act is maintainable. Appellate Authority also confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the petitioner requirement of the petition mentioned building for demolition and reconstruction is Consequently the Appellate Authority dismissed the Rent Control Appeal. Aggrieved judgment of the Appellate Authority the respondents have filed the present civil petition. 5. Mr.K.Mohanram, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petition eviction was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petition mentioned building required for demolition and reconstruction and that his requirement is bona fide the Supreme Court in M/s.P.Orr and Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Ml s Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd, 1990 T.L.N.J 17, has held that the landlord, to obtain an order of eviction reconstruction must satisfy one essential condition viz., that the condition of the building such that it required immediate demolition for reconstruction and in this case, there absolutely no evidence to show that the condition of the building is such that it required immediate demolition for reconstruction. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. In the petition R.C.O.P.No.93 of 1983 it is merely stated that the building is an old and unsubstantial and it is just a shed resting on wooden poles, and that the petitioner purchased the primarily for the locality value and with a view to put up a new structure after pulling the existing structure for better and profitable investment and increased return investment. In the counter the respondents have specifically stated that the building question is in good condition and it does not require any immediate demolition reconstruction. In the counter the respondents have specifically stated that the building question is in good condition and it does not require any immediate demolition reconstruction. P.W.I in his evidence has stated that the building is old one and building is demolished and a new building is constructed it will fetch good return evidence P.W.1 has admitted that he saw the petition mentioned building only in thereafter he did not inspect the same. He has further admitted in his evidence that in a position speak about it. There is absolutely no evidence in this case to show condition of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition for reconstruction. petitioner has not made out a case for eviction on the ground that the petitioner requirement of the petition mentioned building for demolition and reconstruction is. 6. Mr.Jamal Mohamed, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even that the petitioner has not made out a case for eviction on the ground that the petitioner requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide, the eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority can be sustained ground that the respondents’ denial of the petitioner’s title to the superstructure is fide. Mr.K.Mohanram, on the other hand would contend that the respondents have denied title of the petitioner to the superstructure in the petition mentioned premises even suit, O.S.No.518 of 1979 filed by the respondents against the petitioner; the petitioner not filed the petition for eviction in the present case on the ground that the respondents denial of the petitioner ’ s title to the superstructure is not bona fide, though that ground available to the petitioner at the time of filing the present petition for eviction; petitioner has failed to claim an order of eviction in the present R.C.O.P. on the ground the respondents ’ denial of the petitioner’s title to the superstructure is wilful the petitioner must be deemed to have waived his right to claim eviction on the ground that respondents wilfully denied the petitioner’s title to the superstructure. The learned for the respondents further contended that an order of eviction cannot be ordered ground which was not mentioned in the landlord’s application for eviction. In support contention the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Govindaswami Chetty Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, (1948)2 M.L.J. 76 (S.N.). The learned for the respondents further contended that an order of eviction cannot be ordered ground which was not mentioned in the landlord’s application for eviction. In support contention the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Govindaswami Chetty Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, (1948)2 M.L.J. 76 (S.N.). I am not inclined accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. In the present case, order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority is sought sustained not on the ground that the respondents denied the title of the petitioner superstructure in the earlier suit O.S.No.518 of 1979 but on the ground that the respondents denied the petitioner’s title to the superstructure in the counter filed in the courses present proceedings and, therefore, the question of the petitioner waiving his right to eviction on the ground that the respondents wilfully denied the title of the petitioner superstructure does not arise in this case. 7. In Majati Subbarao v. P. V.K.Krishna Rao,A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2187, the Supreme Court held that a denial of title in the course of eviction petition constitutes a ground for provided the denial is not bona fide and it is not necessary that in order to constitute ground for eviction, the denial of the title must be anterior to the filing of the petition. The Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision further held that: "To insist that a denial of title in the written statement cannot be taken advantage of suit but can be taken advantage of only in a subsequent suit to be filed by the landlord only lead to unnecessary multiplicity of legal proceedings as the landlord would be obliged file a second suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of forfeiture entitled by the tenant’s denial of his character as a tenant in the written statement." In view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred above, the principles laid Govindaswami Chetty v. Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, (1948)2 (S.N.), cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 8. The evidence in this case discloses that the petitioner has title to both the land as to the superstructure of the petition mentioned premises. Ex.A-1 is the judgment O.S.No.518of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore. 8. The evidence in this case discloses that the petitioner has title to both the land as to the superstructure of the petition mentioned premises. Ex.A-1 is the judgment O.S.No.518of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore. O.S.No.518 of 1979 suit filed by the first respondent and the partners of the first respondent against petitioner for permanent injunction. Issue No.2 framed in the said suit runs as follows: "Whether the defendant is the owner of the superstructure in the suit properties?" On the basis of the evidence, the Civil Court in Ex.A-1 in O.S.No.518 of 1979 rendered following finding: "I therefore hold under this issue that the defendant is the owner of the superstructure the suit property. This issue to be answered accordingly." 8. Further, Ex.A-52, the letter written by the first respondent-firm to the petitioner and 55 and A-56 notices sent by one of the partners of the first respondent to the petitioner to show that the respondents have admitted that they are the tenants in respect of as well as the building under the petitioner. In the counter filed by in the proceedings the respondents have denied the petitioner’s title to the superstructure of the finding of the civil court in O.S.No.518 of 1979 that the petitioner has title superstructure. However, the respondents have not let in any evidence to substantiate case put forth in the counter that they constructed the building and that the building to them. In these circumstances, both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate found that the respondents ’ denial of the petitioner ’ s title to the building is, not bona doubt, the above findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were for coming to the conclusion that the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner against respondents under the provisions of the Act is maintainable. However, as pointed out Supreme Court in Majati Subbarao v. P.V.K.Krishna Rao, A.I.R 1989 S.C. 2187, the title in the course of eviction proceedings constitutes a ground for eviction when proved that such denial is not bona fide. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an eviction in the present case on the ground that the respondents denied the title petitioner to the petition mentioned building in the course of the eviction proceedings such denial of the petitioner ’ s title by the respondents is not bona fide. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an eviction in the present case on the ground that the respondents denied the title petitioner to the petition mentioned building in the course of the eviction proceedings such denial of the petitioner ’ s title by the respondents is not bona fide. circumstances, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Authority can be sustained though not on the ground that the petitioner’s requirement petition mentioned building for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide but on the that the respondents in the course of the eviction proceedings denied the title petitioner to the superstructure of the petition mentioned premises and such denial bona fide. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. 10. Mr.K.Mohanram, counsel for the tenant requests six months time for vacating premises on the ground that the tenant is carrying on transport business in the mentioned premises. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case the further fact that the tenant is carrying on transport business in the petition mentioned premises, the tenant is granted four months for vacating the premises on condition tenant files an affidavit within four weeks from today before this court undertaking to the premises after the expiry of the said period of four months. Petition dismissed.