Judgment : The tenant of a non-residential building who was unsuccessful before the Rent Controller as well before the appellate Authority, has preferred this civil revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of both the authorities that he is liable to be evicted from the premises in question. The respondent sought eviction mainly on two grounds viz., wilful default and bona fide requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction. Acts of waste were also mentioned in passing. The case of the petitioner before the Rent Controller was that there was no wilful default and further the building was not in a dilapidated condition needing demolition and reconstruction. On the other hand it was the case of the petitioner that the building was in a sound condition. 2. Learned Rent Controller held that the petitioner was liable to be evicted on both grounds namely, wilful default and bona fide requirement of the landlord of the building for demolition and reconstruction. However, on appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller so far as it concerned “wilful default”, but concurred with the finding regarding the bona fide requirement of the building, by the landlord, for demolition and reconstruction. 3. In this civil revision petition, Mr.Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended, that the landlord had not chosen to file a sanctioned plan which is usually done in every case, to indicate bona fide requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction. He then contended, that the Court Commissioner had inspected the premises in question on two occasions. As far as the second occasion is concerned, clear material is not available. 4. I have carefully considered the contentions of Mr.Jayaraman. To arrive at a conclusion of bona fides of the landlord, several circumstances which appear in evidence may have to be taken together and conclusions arrived at on the totality of such material. As a rigid rule, it cannot be stated that in every case without a sanctioned plan, brought on record by the landlord, bona fides cannot be held in his favour. In certain cases lack of a sanctioned plan, or evidence regarding sufficiency of funds, may tend to affect bona fides, while in other cases, non-marking of the sanctioned plan, may not be sufficient to discard the bona fides of the landlord. This is purely a question of fact. 5. In certain cases lack of a sanctioned plan, or evidence regarding sufficiency of funds, may tend to affect bona fides, while in other cases, non-marking of the sanctioned plan, may not be sufficient to discard the bona fides of the landlord. This is purely a question of fact. 5. A perusal of the evidence of the respondent clearly shows, that he has the funds for putting up a new construction. Further he has filed an undertaking as contemplated under Sec.14(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. As far as the bona fides are concerned, both the authorities below have gone into this aspect in detail, with meticulous care keeping in view the latest enunciation of law by the Apex Court in P.Orr. and Sons case, (1990)2 L.W. 547 (S.C.). Both the authorities had before them the specific fact of the building being 60 years old purely built out of mud paste and unbaked bricks. Roofing was of palmyrah poles supported by thatches and Mangalore tiles. The reports of the Commissioner and his plan Exs.C-1 and C-2 not only disclosed the dilapidated condition of the building, but also the urgent need for demolition of the same. The building appears to be in a rather precarious condition. Since the building was in such a precarious condition, the petitioner himself appears to have undertaken some repairs recently, though there is dispute, whether such repairs were carried out with or without the permission of the landlord. Both the authorities have rendered a finding that there was danger of the building collapsing at any point of time, on unassailable evidence I concur with the said finding. 6. Mr.Jayaraman invited my attention to the decision of Venkatadri, J. in Chandrasekara v. Kakumani Adhikesavulu Chetty’s Charity, A.I.R. 1966 Mad. 14, wherein the learned Judge has observed as follows: “Bona fide may be proved in any ordinary way like any other fact in issue or relative fact. It is not a rule of law that bona fide being a subjective matter can only be proved by the landlord stepping into the witness-box. Judge has to take every circumstances which affects the interests of the landlord and the tenant as well as the interests of the public on the date of hearing, into consideration. It is not a rule of law that bona fide being a subjective matter can only be proved by the landlord stepping into the witness-box. Judge has to take every circumstances which affects the interests of the landlord and the tenant as well as the interests of the public on the date of hearing, into consideration. The landlord has to satisfy the court that his requirement is reasonable and bona fide one, that he has prepared the plans and necessary estimates for the new building, that he has obtained the necessary sanction from the Corporation or Municipal authorities and that he has got the necessary funds to carry out such reconstructions.” 7. The decision of G.Ramanujam, J. in G.K.Jose and others v. Ramathal, (1979)1 M.L.J. 372 : 92 L.W. 315, was also cited: The learned Judge has observed as follows: “The Court could not make out how the obtaining of a plan subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition would show that the requirement of the premises by the landlady for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction was not bona fide. On the finding of the Appellate Authority which was based on the materials on record it was not possible to say that the requirement of the respondent (landlady) was not bona fide at all. The Court accepted the findings of the authorities below that the landlady required the premises bona fide for demolition and reconstruction.” 8. Even in the light of both these authorities, it is clear that ‘bona fides’ is a question of fact. What will be sufficient evidence, will vary from case to case, and the Courts will have to carefully scrutinise such material before accepting or rejecting the bona fides of the landlord or landlady, as the came may be. It is a matter of common knowledge that rent control proceedings do take some years before a final decision is arrived at or rendered by the Court at the top in the vertical order. A sanctioned plan obtained necessarily has to be renewed or reobtained depending on the nature of pendency of the Rent Control proceedings. It cannot always be insisted that without a sanctioned plan, the landlord cannot claim bona fides. A sanctioned plan obtained necessarily has to be renewed or reobtained depending on the nature of pendency of the Rent Control proceedings. It cannot always be insisted that without a sanctioned plan, the landlord cannot claim bona fides. It is in this context, if one refers to Sec.14(2)(b) of the Act, the requirement is clear, that the demolition in material part must be commenced within one month and completed within three months. The second does not speak of commencement of new construction within that period. I am satisfied that no ground has been made out to interfere in revision. The findings of both the authorities, need no further scrutiny in revision. There is neither a question of law nor error in jurisdiction to admit this civil revision petition. Hence this civil revision petition is dismissed, at the admission stage itself. 9. At this stage, MrJayaraman pleaded for some time to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession. On this plea I have heard Mr.S.Thiruvenkatasamy, learned Counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent. Keeping in view the condition of the building, in the event of an affidavit of undertaking being filed within one week from today, by the petitioner that he will vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord, he shall have one month to vacate the premises, reckoned from to-day.