JUDGMENT V. Ratnam, C. J.—In this revision petition, at the instance of the landlords, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the authorities below were right in having declined to grant an order of eviction against the respondent, on the grounds put forward by the petitioners. 2. In the application for eviction, the petitioners mainly put forward two grounds, namely, (1) the premises in occupation of the respondent had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, and (2) the premises are required bonafide for re-building, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenant. The claims so made were resisted by the respondent, on the grounds that the premises arc in good condition and that the requirement of the premises by the petitioners for re-building is also not bonafide. 3. Upon a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the authorities below found that the petitioners have not established their case for securing an order of eviction against the respondent on the grounds set-out by them. In the view so taken, the eviction petition was dismissed and it was also affirmed on appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the building had become un-safe and unfit for human habitation and, therefore, the petitioners ought to have been granted an order of eviction However, this contention cannot be accepted. Though a fire broke out on 8/9-7-1985 and the report submitted by PW-6 as Ex. P6/A, shows that the two shops have been inspected, yet the report does not very clearly establish the precise condition of the shop in the occupation of the respondent. On the other hand, an Engineer of the Public Works Department, was appointed as Local Commissioner and he has been examined as RW-5 and he has also given a report Ex. OW I/A, where from it is seen that the premises in the occupation of the respondent is in good condition and fit for human habitation. The authorities below have considered the evidence in relation to the condition of the premises and have concluded that the building in occupation of the respondent is not unsafe and has also not become unfit for human habitation. The authorities below were quite right in that conclusion based upon the evidence of PW-6 and the report Ex. P6/A and RW-5 and his report Ex. The authorities below were quite right in that conclusion based upon the evidence of PW-6 and the report Ex. P6/A and RW-5 and his report Ex. PW I/A and on the acceptance of the letters report in preference to the earlier one. The evidence ofPW-1 in regard to the premises and to the effect that it had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, cannot, in the light of the evidence of RW-5 and his report Ex. OW 1/A, be accepted The conclusion of the authorities below on this aspect is, therefore, unassailable. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners next contended that the premises in occupation of the respondent is required by the petitioners for re-building and that they have adequate resources to take up and complete the project of re-construction and that the petitioners as well as the respondent and others would be benefited by the coming into being of the multi-storeyed building. 6. This contention also cannot be accepted. The evidence discloses that there is lack of bona fides. From Exs. P-4 and PC it is seen that the proposal appears to include the premises in the occupation of respondent as well another adjoining shop in the occupation of Kewal Krishan, as a tenant. The evidence of PW 1 is to the effect that he intends to raise a new construction after demolition of both the tenanted premises. Ex. PX and PY, it is seen that though proceedings had been taken againt Kewal Krishan that had been withdrawn, This would clearly establish that as things stand now, the petitioners do not propose to do anything with the premises in the occupation of Kewal Krishan. Though counsel for the petitioners stated that an understanding had been arrived at between the petitioners and Kewal Krishan that he would make available to them the premises in his occupation, there is no material in support of that. The conduct of the petitioners in withdrawing the proceeding initiated against Kewal Krishan clearly establishes that the requirement of the petitioners lacks in bona fides. In addition, it is also seen that the petitioners do not seem to have definite proposal in regard to the proposed construction. In the course of the petition, they had stated that they proposed to build a building of two/three storeys. However, the site-plan Ex. P-4 shows that the building is only single storeyed. In addition, it is also seen that the petitioners do not seem to have definite proposal in regard to the proposed construction. In the course of the petition, they had stated that they proposed to build a building of two/three storeys. However, the site-plan Ex. P-4 shows that the building is only single storeyed. There is no evidence which clinchingly establishes that the petitioners command the requisite resources for the purpose of undertaking the project of reconstruction. 7. A careful consideration of the available material shows that the requirement of the petitioner lacks in bona fides and the authorities below were right in holding so. 8. In those circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. The revision petition is dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.