Judgment : The revision petition is directed against the order passed in R.C.A.No.18 of 1989 on the file of Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Srivilliputhur confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1988 on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Sattur. .2. Short facts are: The respondent filed RC.O.P.No.8 of 1988 against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of wilful default and requirement for demolition and reconstruction. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: .The respondent is tenant under the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.200 payable on the last day of every Tamil Month for the purpose of manufacturing matches only. The lease was oral. The respondent wilfully omitted to pay the rent from Avani (18. 1986) to the end of Purattasi (110. 1987) for a period of fourteen months. The petitioner sent notice terminating the tenancy on 210. 1987. The respondent returned the notice on 30.10.1987. On 11. 1987, the respondent sent a cheque for Rs.2,800 towards arrears of rent for fourteen months. For the subsequent months viz., Ippasi to Margazhi (110. 1987 to 11. 1988), the respondent had not paid rent wilfully. The age of the building is more than 70years. To have a better income, the petitioner wants to demolish the entire tiled building and construct a new building with RCC roof. The petitioner is a wealthy woman and she has got sufficient means to construct a building. She had obtained licence on 110. 1987 from the Municipal Commissioner to demolish the tiled building and to construct a new building within a period of one year. She undertakes to demolish the building within one month from the date of possession and construct a building before the expiry of three months. Hence the petition. .3. The tenant resisted the claim on the following grounds: .There is no wilful default in payment of rent. On 4. 1982, the petitioner had executed a written lease agreement for ten years from 4. 1982 onwards. The building is not 70 years old. If it is demolished and new building is put up, it will not fetch any additional income. The petitioner has got no source of income to put up a new building. The requirement is not bona fide. Hence dismissal of the petition is prayed for. 4. 1982 onwards. The building is not 70 years old. If it is demolished and new building is put up, it will not fetch any additional income. The petitioner has got no source of income to put up a new building. The requirement is not bona fide. Hence dismissal of the petition is prayed for. 4. After elaborate enquiry, the learned District Munsif had found that there are willful default in payment of rent and that the requirement for demolition and reconstruction was bona fide and had ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent in the trial court filed appeal in R.C.A.No.8 of 1988 and having failed there, has come forward with this revision. .5. Mr.S.Sadasharam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that arrears of rent alleged was only for three months and immediately after the filing of the petition that was paid and there was no wilful default in payment of rent. The learned counsel, would further submit that the building was not dilapidated and the lower appellate court’s finding that it is in dilapidated condition is not warranted by the evidence available in this case. He would further submit that it was not the petitioner’s case that the building was dilapidated. .6. I have carefully considered the submission “ made by the learned counsel. I shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the trial court. Regarding wilful default in payment of rent, the learned counsel would submit that it was only for the months of Ippasi, Karthigai and Margazhi, 1987 and it was paid immediately on the filing of the petition. On an earlier occasion, the respondent was in arrears in payment of rent for 14 months and it was sent by a demand draft. Then again, the respondent had left arrears of three months. The trial court has pointed out that after Ex.P-1 there is no evidence to show that the respondent has been paying rent regularly. The trial court has rightly pointed out that the respondent is a businessman and if only rent has been paid regularly, that would be reflected in the account books maintained by the respondent, but the respondent had not chosen to produce the account books and from it, it can be inferred that the rent was not paid regularly, as has been claimed. It is not a question of arrears of rent for merely three months. That alone cannot be considered out of context. He had left arrears on earlier occasion and only after making a claim, he sent cheque.. Then again, the respondent had left arrears. From it, the only inference that can be drawn is that the default was wilful. That finding was confirmed by the lower appellate court and I do not find any reason to differ from the same. Regarding the bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction, to find out the position of the building, an advocate-Commissioner Was appointed by the trial court. The advocate-Commissioner had inspected the building and has pointed out that it is looking very old. He has stated in para.3 of his report that the flooring is in repairs and two rooms were put up only with mud wall and it is also looking very old. He also pointed out that there is another room on the front, in the eastern side, that it is also made up of mud wall. He has also pointed out that on the southern side of the building, the tiles are hanging, without being connected with the wall. The Commissioner has also noted that the building was not properly maintained that there was no white washing. In more than one place, he has pointed out that it is very old. In evidence, the respondent himself has admitted that it would have been built about 40 years ago: He has also admitted that a good building can be constructed after demolishing this building. Regarding means, the petitioner’s father, who figured as P.W.I has stated that the petitioner is owning 55 other buildings and is getting a monthly rental income of Rs.5,000. That was not questioned in cross-examination. P.W.I has also stated that they have obtained permission from the Municipality for demolishing it and putting up a new construction and then again the period was extended by the Municipality by passing another order. The above pieces of evidence would cleraly go to show that the building is old and is not properly maintained and it is in a bad shape. The petitioner has got sufficient means to put up a new construction. She has already obtained the necessary permission from the Municipality. So it is clear that her claim is bona fide. The above pieces of evidence would cleraly go to show that the building is old and is not properly maintained and it is in a bad shape. The petitioner has got sufficient means to put up a new construction. She has already obtained the necessary permission from the Municipality. So it is clear that her claim is bona fide. The concurrent findings of the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. The learned counsel relied upon M/s.P. Orr and Sons v. Associated Publishers, (1990)3 S.C.J. 601, in which the Apex Court has held that Sec.l4(l)(b) is satisfied only if the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the ‘immediate”, i.e., direct, sole and timely purpose of demolishing it with a view to erecting a new building on the site of the existing building. Various circumstances such as the capacity of the landlord, the size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authority in consideration an application for recovery; but the essential and overriding consideration which, in the general interests of the public and for the protection of the tenants from unreasonable eviction, the legislature has in mind is the condition of the building that demands timely demolition by reason of the extent of damage to its structure making it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs. While the condition of the building by itself may not necessarily establish the bona fide requirement under clause (b), that condition is not only one of the various circumstances which may be taken into account by the Controller, but it is the essential condition in the absence of which it would not be possible for the landlord to prove that he has bona fide requirement which is timely, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building. In the instant case, all the circumstances mentioned above do exist. Hence, I do not find any ground to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. In the result, the petition fails and shall stand dismissed. The petitioner is given four months time from today for vacating the premises.