Judgment : 1. All these Revisions are by tenants occupying portions of the main structure. 2. Landlords sought eviction of various occupants on the ground that the building requires immediate deolition and reconstruction. 3. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petitions, but the same was reverised by the Appellate Authority. The legality of the judgment of the Appellate Authority is challenged in these Revisions. 4. The material averments in all the eviction petitions are the same, except regarding the rate of rent with which we are not concerned in these Revisions. 5. Regarding the requirement for demolition and reconstruction, the case put forward by the landlords is that there is a multi-storeyed building, the front portion of which is roofed with Madras Terrace and the rear portion is Madras Terrace and Mangalore titled. The building is constructed with brick and lime and plastered with cement, and country wood is used throughout. It is further said that the entire building has developed cracks and in the northern and eastern portion the parent wall has gone out of shape and is sagging. There are horizontal crevices and vertical crevices on the facade of the building and in the rooms. Due to substandard construction, the roof is leaky and the condition of the balcony is alarming. The leakage of water has resulted in damages to number of joints and the roof itself is caved and cracked. A portion of the balcony has already fallen and has been temporarily reconstructed, and in other partions, the roof is caving in. Consequently, number of cracks have developed in the building and the rear portion is likely to collapse at any time. Further, due to faulty construction and bad workmanship and substandard specifications, the front portion of the building is also in danger of imminent collapse as it cannot take the weight of additional load. In major portion, temporary country wood has been provided as joints to support the cross-beams to prevent the roof collapsing. Further, wiring has been exposed in several portions which may result in short circuiting of the place. The cross-beams are eaten away by white ants and are likely to collapse at any time. There is water logging on the balcony and on the ground floor resulting in innumerable cracks throughout the building. The building is thus in a highly dilapidated and ruinous condition, and it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The cross-beams are eaten away by white ants and are likely to collapse at any time. There is water logging on the balcony and on the ground floor resulting in innumerable cracks throughout the building. The building is thus in a highly dilapidated and ruinous condition, and it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. It is further averred by the landlords that they applied to the Corporation of Madras, for demolition of the building and the same has been granted by the Authorities, and they have also paid the demolition charges to the Corporation of Madras, and the plan for demolition has been approved and sanctioned by them. It is also said that they have got means to demolish and reconstruct the building in question. Landlords issued notices to various tenants, asking them to surrender the respective portion of the building occupied by them. It is further said that for better investment, and for improvement of the place, demolition and reconstruction is absolutely necessary. They have also undertaken that they will commence demolition of the building within one month and the same will be completed within three months from the date of recovery of possession. 6. In the counter statement, they dispute the various averments in the petition and according to them the building is not old, nor does it require demolition and reconstruction. The various averments regarding the condition of the building are also denied. They said that the landlords themselves moved the Corporation for getting the building demolished. They also dispute the means of the landlords for putting up the construction. They also say they during November 1994, there was a storm and cyclonic weather, and if the building was in a bad shape, the same would not have survived the cyclonic weather, and since it has survived, the allegation regarding the condition of the building is proved to be false. The nature of construction alleged by the landlords is also disputed. They also dispute the bona fides of the landlords in claiming eviction. 7. All the eviction petitions in which there was contest, were clubbed together and a joint trial was asked. It is seen that various other petitions were also filed by the landlord for getting eviction and Exs. B37 to B44 are various judgments. In those petitions, eviction was asked on the very same ground. 8. 7. All the eviction petitions in which there was contest, were clubbed together and a joint trial was asked. It is seen that various other petitions were also filed by the landlord for getting eviction and Exs. B37 to B44 are various judgments. In those petitions, eviction was asked on the very same ground. 8. Before the Rent Controller, on the side of the landlord Exs. A1 to A61 were marked, and on the side of the respondents/tenants Ex. B1 to B8 were marked. Ex. C1 is the Commissioners report in one of the eviction petitions. By way of oral evidence P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the landlords and D.W. 1 to D.W. 14 were examined on the side of the tenants. 9. Ex. A59, B5 and C1 are the various Reports by Engineers and advocate Commissioner respectively to prove the physical condition of the building. P.W. 3 and D.W. 13 are the Engineers who prepared Ex. A59 and Ex. B5 respectively. After taking into account the entire evidence, the Rent Controller was of the view that the evidence adduced by the landlords is not sufficient to hold that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller was of the view that the building does not require immediate demolition and it can survive some more years, and what it requires is only certain repairs. It also came to the conclusion that the landlords have not proved their means. He accepted the evidence of the tenants to hold that the landlords have filed the eviction petitions without any bona fides. All the Eviction Petitions were dismissed. 10. Against the said decision, the landlords filed various appeals before the Appellate Authority and all the appeals were clubbed together since evidence was common. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding and came to the conclusion that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction and therefore, ordered eviction. The bona fides and means of the landlords were also found in their favour. 11. It is against the reversing judgment, these Revision Petitions have been filed. 12. Under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the jurisdiction of this Court, sitting in revision, is only to consider whether the decision of the Appellate Authority is in any way illegal, irregular or imporper. It is not sitting as an Appellate Court. 12. Under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the jurisdiction of this Court, sitting in revision, is only to consider whether the decision of the Appellate Authority is in any way illegal, irregular or imporper. It is not sitting as an Appellate Court. We need only consider whether, on the available evidence, the view taken by the Appellate Authority can be correct. Even if a different view can be taken, that will not be a ground for setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 13. To consider whether the view of the Appellate Authority can be correct on the available materials let us consider the law. 14. Section 14(1)(b) of the said Act enables the landlord to get an order of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The point as to what are the matters to be proved and how the bona fides of the landlord can be proved, came for consideration before the Supreme Court in 1990-2-L.W. 547 ( P. Orr. & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited ). After analysing The untire case-law, their Lordships said that the physical condition of the building has got a bearing to consider whether it requires demolition and recontruction. But at the same time, their Lordships cautioned that the word ‘immediate’ should not be construed as meaning that it is in a grave danger of collapsing at any time. Their Lordships held thus:— “Thus requirement for demolition can be regarded as genuine and bona fide only when the condition of the existing building is such that a reasonable and prudent landlord would regard it to be undeconomical to repair it rather than demolish it and construct a new building’. Apart from the condition of the building, the nature of the locality advantages arising from construction, the capacity of the landlord to erect a new building, the demand for accommodation and other factors suggesting the bona fide character of the landlords request for recovery of possession under S. 14(1)(b) are relevant. Apart from the condition of the building, the nature of the locality advantages arising from construction, the capacity of the landlord to erect a new building, the demand for accommodation and other factors suggesting the bona fide character of the landlords request for recovery of possession under S. 14(1)(b) are relevant. Even where the condition of the building demands demolition it is possible that in view of the landlords lack of capacity to rebuilding or the futility of reconstruction by reason of the condition of the time and place, the authority may regard without prejudice to whatever power there is to enforce repairs or demolition in certain circumstances, that the landlords application lacks bona fide. The authority has to take into account the totality of the circumstances. S. 14(1)(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 considering an application for recovery. But the essential 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 cl(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 a bona fide requirement which is timely, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building. The Act does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant circumstances, requires demolition. The Act does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant circumstances, requires demolition. These are matters which are to be proved by evidence. It must, however, be emphasised that in order to satisfy the test under Section 14(1)(b), the condition of the building need not have deteriorated to the extent of the building being in danger of crumbling down, but the condition must be such as to indicate a bona fide requirement for the timely, genuine and direct purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The personal requirement of the landlord or any member of his family for residence or business is not germane to Section 14. and to import that concept for the construction of that Section, as the High Court appears to have done, is to project S. 10 into S. 14, and that is an exercise which has no warrant in the law. While S. 10 does not speak of anything being required to be done for the building S. 14 speaks only of what is required to be done for the building. The condition of the building may be such that repairs arc required, and recovery of possession can be had for that purpose in terms of and subject to the provisions of S. 14 and S. 18. The tenant has a right in terms of the provisions to reoccupy the building after repairs This requirement of the landlord for recovery must be bona fide, in the sense that the condition of the building justifies the requirements”. 15. The said Section again came up for interpretation by this Court in the decision reported in 1992-1 L.W. 190 (K.A. Vadivclu v. R. Govindarajalu), and it was held thus:— “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 case may be. It is a matter of common knowledge that Rent Control proceedings do take some years before a final decision is arrived or rendered by the court at the top in the vertical order. It is a matter of common knowledge that Rent Control proceedings do take some years before a final decision is arrived 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”. 16. In 1995-1-L.W. 682 ( A. Lakshmanan and others v. Kanniammal @ Pattammal ), it was held thus:— “As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the landlady, S. 14(1)(b) of the Act is not rendered inapplicable merely because the building is not old or dilapidated, but is in good condition. In other words, if the intention of the landlady for demolition and reconstruction is proved to be genuine and not suprious or specious, the landlady would be entitled to obtain an order for eviction under S. 14(1) (b) of the Act, whether or not the condition of the building is such as to require immediate demolition, the age and dilapidated condition of the building not being sine qua nan for such eviction. In an eviction petition filed on the ground of demolition and reconstruction motive for demolition and reconstruction is wholly irrelevant. Mere carrying out minor repairs here and there occasionally by the tenants and keeping the building in good state of repairs will not, in any way, prevent the landlady from seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. It is always open to the landlady to demolish an admittedly old building and put up a new building in that place with a view to sugment her income. The non-examination of the Commissioner or an Engineer is not fatal to the case as the landlady has proved that she has enough funds and has also taken steps by obtaining the plan for demolition and reconstruction, which would be sufficient to hold that the landlady requires the building for immediate demolition and construction”. 17. In 1996 (1) C. T.C. 330 = 1996-2-L.W. 720 (Central HameediaStores & two others v. Valliammal @ Rajammal), it was held thus:— “It is true that neither the petitioners nor the respondent had let in any evidence to prove the condition of the building. 17. In 1996 (1) C. T.C. 330 = 1996-2-L.W. 720 (Central HameediaStores & two others v. Valliammal @ Rajammal), it was held thus:— “It is true that neither the petitioners nor the respondent had let in any evidence to prove the condition of the building. The respondents evidence is that the building is 60 years old and the same has not been disputed by the petitioners. The respondent further stated in her evidence that the building is situated in the prime location in the town and if the building is demolished and a modern superstructure is put up, she may increase her income. The condition of the building is one of the criteria. That has to be taken into consideration for the request under S. 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and that is not the sole ground . Hence the respondent is entitled to ask for the demolition of the building. AR. Lakshmanan, J. had discussed the very same issue in his judgment reported in Lakshmanan v. Kannammal alias Pattammal - 1995-2-M.L.J. 178 = 1995-1-L.W. 632 as follows:— “As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the landlady S. 14(1)(b) of the Act is not rendered inapplicable merely because the building is not old or dilapidated but is in a good condition. In other words, if the intention of the landlady for demolition and reconstruction is proved to be genuine and not spurious or specious, the landlady would be entitled to obtain an order for eviction under S. 14(1) (b) of the Act Whether or not the condition of the building is such as to require immediate demolition, the age and dilapidated condition of the building not being sine qua non for such evidence. As held by our High Court, in the decision reported in Arumugam v. D.R. Srinivasan 1982-2-M.L.J. 298, if the landlady wanted to pull down a relatively, recent construction and put up a multi-storeyed building according to modern requirements, the law does not prevent her provided it was bona fide . The decision of the Supreme Court will come in to pla only when the landlady relies on the age and condition of the building for the purpose of Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Act. The decision of the Supreme Court will come in to pla only when the landlady relies on the age and condition of the building for the purpose of Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Act. Likewise, it is well established in this case that the means of the landlady to carry out the work of demolition and reconstruction is a relevant factor to be taken note of by this court and consider while testing her bona fide: As observed in the decision reported in Rukmani Ammal v. Izudden AIR 1983 Mad. 303 = (1983) 96 L.W. 145 this does not necessarily mean that the landlady should jingle the coins before the Controller to establish this factor. I am therefore, unable to hold that the applications have been filed merely with a view to evict the tenants. The contention of Mr. E. Padmanabhan, that the entire, eviction proceedings, is nothing but a device to evict the tenants and in view of the conduct of the landlady, no order of eviction could be passed on the facts of this cases not based on any acceptable moterual. Therefore, I reject the same. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in P. ORR. & Sons. (P) Ltd., v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd., 1990-2-L.W. 547, in order to satisfy the test under S. 14(1)(b) of the Act, the condition of the building need not have dateriorated to the extent of the building being in danger of crumbling down but the condition must be such as to indicate a bona fide requirement for the timely, genuine and direct purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The decision reported in Annamalai Nadar v. D. Thangamani (1991-2-L.W. 609) is a judgment by a Division Bench consisting of Nainar Sundaram, J., as he then was, and Thanikkachalam, J. where, again by applying the test laid down in P. ORR & Sons (P) Ltd., v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. , 1990-2-L.W. 547, the Bench held that the condition of the building need not have deteriorated to the extent of its being in danger of crumbling down, but it should indicate the bona fide requirement for the timely, genuine and direct purpose of demolition and reconstruction. As pointed our earlier, Mr. E. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the tenants, made his Submission that the Appellate Authority ignored to take note of and adjudicate a vital and relevant factor, viz., the condition of the building. As pointed our earlier, Mr. E. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the tenants, made his Submission that the Appellate Authority ignored to take note of and adjudicate a vital and relevant factor, viz., the condition of the building. The learned counsel for the tenants was at pains to impress upon me that the existing condition of the building does not warrant the upholding of the case of the landlady for demolition and reconstruction”. Though the burden is on the landlady to prove the condition of the building, when the tenants also got into the box to give evidence, they should have let in evidence contra that the condition of the building is such that it does not require demolition. In the absence of any contra evidence, there is nothing wrong in accepting the evidence of the landlady. Both the authorities below had categorically found that the requirement of the landlady under Section 14(1)(b) is bona fide”. 18. On the above statement of law, we have to find out whether, on the materials available on record, the Appellate Authority has appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective. 19. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners (tenants) is that the landlady has not gone to the box and, therefore, the bona fides are not proved. It is contended that in one of the proceedings, the landlady got herself examined, in spite of the fact that she is a Pardhanashin lady. Even if she does not want to appear in public she could have got herself examined on Commission and substantiated her cause. 20. The said contention cannot be accepted, bona fide is a fact which has to be proved, and the court will have to enter a finding regarding the same on the available materials. Rent Control proceedings are only civil proceedings and, therefore, the rule of appreciation of evidence depends on the probabilities of the case. Even in cases where the landlords require the building for own occupation, this Court as well as the Supreme Court has held that it is not absolutely necessary that the landlady alone should enter the box. If other materials are available to substantiate the same, the landlord can certainly rely on the same and adduce evidence. Even in cases where the landlords require the building for own occupation, this Court as well as the Supreme Court has held that it is not absolutely necessary that the landlady alone should enter the box. If other materials are available to substantiate the same, the landlord can certainly rely on the same and adduce evidence. In so far as the bona fides for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction are concerned, bona fides stand proved if the various ingredients under the relevant Section are substantiated. Unless the tenants have got a case that the landlords have come to court with an ulterior motive, if the landlords prove the ingredients under S. 14(1)(b) the bona fides stand utomatically proved. So, the first contention of the various revision petitioners cannot be accepted as correct. Disclaimer: The text is computer generated. The user must verify the authenticity of the extracted portion with the certified copy of the judgment. This extract is taken from Venugapal v. Fathima Beevi, (1996) 2 LW 772 , at page 780: 21. It is further contended that Ex. C1 Commissioners Report should not have been accepted. It is said that the Commissioner who has prepared the Report has not been examined and the Report was filed only in one case. The said contention also cannot be accepted for a moment. A similar question came for consideration before the Supreme Court and the decision rendered thereon is reported in 1995 Supp. (4) S.C.C. 600 (Misrilal Ramratan and others v. A.S. Shaik Fathima) In paragraph 3 of the said judgment their Lordships held thus:— “Shri Sundaravaradan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the approach of the High Court is manifestly illegal. We find no force in the contention. It is now settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of the record and that therefore the report cannot be overlooked or rejected on specious plea of non examination of the Commissioner as a witnes since it is part of the record of the case”. Further the objection to the Commissioners report Ex. C1 is that since it is prepared in only one case, the said report is not binding in the other cases. Further the objection to the Commissioners report Ex. C1 is that since it is prepared in only one case, the said report is not binding in the other cases. The other cases when the landlords file nearly 30 petitions for eviction of various tenants in the same building, it is not practicable for the landlords to file 30 Applications for the appointment of Commissioner. Again, when the Commissioners report was marked, after joint trial was allowed without any objection the same cannot be challenged in Revision on the ground that it has no evidentiary value. The Commissioners Report can be considered in the case in which it was prepared without any doubt. From that, an inference can be drawn as to the physical condition of the building at least in respect of portions of the building. An inference also can be drawn thereafter whether the remaining portions of the building are also in good shape. We must understood that the tenants are in occupation of various portions of the same structure, and Ex. C1 Report relates to more or less the middle portion of the structure. From Ex. C1 it can be seen that cracks have formed on the walls, and the balcony is also damaged and has fallen down. The rear portion of the building is more or less collapsed. The tile portion of the building is mostly damaged and since there is no outlet, during rains, water used to collect, resulting in waterlogging. The construction of the building is made of country wood, and the electrical fittings are mostly damaged. The plastering has also fallen down in various portions of the building. It is also said that bricks which are made use of for construction of the wall can be seen as damaged, and the cracks are deep and vertical. 22. Along with the same, let us take Ex. A59 which is Engineers report. P.W. 3 has been examined to substantiate his Report and he has also given a vivid picture of the physical conditions of the building According to P.W. 3, the age of the building will be 40 years and his opinion is also more or less identical with Ex. C1. When we consider Ex. C1 and Ex. A. 59 together we get a picture of the physical condition of the building. 23. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that Ex. C1. When we consider Ex. C1 and Ex. A. 59 together we get a picture of the physical condition of the building. 23. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that Ex. B5, which is another Engineers Report gives a different picture of the building and the same should have been accepted. According to me, Ex. B5 also does not support the revision petitioners. Even from Ex. B5, it can be seen that the Engineer does not say that the building is in good shape. From the various observations made by him, it is clear that he is also of the opinion that the building requires major repairs. 24. As stated in P. ORR Sons case (cited supra) for considering the physical condition of the building, it is not necessary that the building should collapse immediately. We must take into account the long period the landlord has to wait for evicting the tenants. If the contention of the tenant that the building should be in such a condition that it would collapse at any time is to be accepted, there is no necessity for the landlord to put forward a contention that he wants demolition and reconstruction. When the landlord comes forward with a case of demolition naturally an inference has to be drawn that there is a building which requires demolition. Again in P. ORR & Sons case, the Supreme Court has considered this point and rejected the said contention. 25. When we consider the question of physical condition, the locality where the building is situated, the development that has taken place in the locality, and the question whether by putting up a new construction, both the landlords and the tenants will be benefited by providing better amenities also will have to be considered. The totality of the circumstances will have to be taken into consideration when we consider the question of physical condition. It is not the structure alone but something more should be taken into consideration for the said purpose; though how the physical structure stands has a bearing, that is not conclusive. 26. The Rent Controller did not accept the contention of the landlords mainly for the reason that the building withstood a storm in 1984 and a flood some time immediately thereafter. It also took note of Ex. B5 to come to a conclusion that the building does not require immediate demolition. 26. The Rent Controller did not accept the contention of the landlords mainly for the reason that the building withstood a storm in 1984 and a flood some time immediately thereafter. It also took note of Ex. B5 to come to a conclusion that the building does not require immediate demolition. That finding of the Rent Controller which is patently wrong and against law, was corrected by the Appellate Authority. It appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. Merely because Ex. B5 supports the case of the tenants, it cannot be said that the case put forward by the landlord is lacking in good faith. The Appellate Authority has taken into consideration both these Reports and also the other evidence in this case, to show that the case of the landlords, is more probable. It also took note of the fact that the tenants, under normal circumstances, will only insist on the continued occupation of the building and, therefore, their evidence can only be treated, as interested. That approach of the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be in any way irregular or improper. 27. The landlords have produced the plan and the licence for reconstruction. This also shows that the landlords are very much anxious to put up a new construction, in the premises in question. 28. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that while assessing the physical condition of the building, its age is material, and in this case, the age cannot be more than 25 years, and, therefore, the allegation that the building requires reconstruction is lacking in good faith. It is true that when we consider Ex. B6 the age of the building cannot be more than 25 years, on the date when the eviction petition was filed. The Appellate Authority did not enter a finding regarding the age of the building. But the Rent Controller found that the age of the building cannot be more than 25 years. It is also contended that the best evidence to prove the age of the building is the plan obtained at the time of construction, and the non-production of the plan must be taken note of by this court as an adverse circumstance against the landlords. 29. It is true that when we consider the physical condition of the building, the age has got some bearing. 29. It is true that when we consider the physical condition of the building, the age has got some bearing. But when the landlords have got a case that the very construction was made of poor materials, and that it is not a good construction, even if the age is only 25, as contended by the tenants the bona fides cannot be doubted. The very fact that the physical condition of the building is bad as on the date of petitions, proves that even though the age is 25 or less, the original construction was not upto the standard. That also substantiates the case of the landlords that what they have alleged is true. When the physical condition of the building is proved to be bad, the age of the building loses its importance. 30. It is contended by some of the revision petitioners that the landlords have let out different portions of the building even six months prior to the date of the eviction petitions, and, according to them, an inference has to be drawn that if the condition of the building was bad as alleged, the landlords would not have let out the building, and that too after receiving huge advance. 31. When the landlords want eviction of the tenants on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction and demand the tenants to surrender vacant possession, they refuse to do so. It was thereafter the landlords had to issue legal notices to various tenants. Even though Rent Control proceedings are to be disposed of within four months, and it is a summary procedure, the court can take judicial notice of the pendency of the proceedings and how long it takes for getting a final disposal. The eviction petitions which are the subject matter in these Revisions, were filed in 1984, and till 1996, all the tenants were occupying the building and were deriving the benefits therefrom. No argument can be put forward against the landlords for making use of the existing building, if, on the existing condition, a willing tenant is prepared to take it, and that too on condition, to surrender the building as and when demanded by the landlords. Law does not say that the landlords, should keep the building vacant merely because some of the tenants have refused to vacate the premises. Law does not say that the landlords, should keep the building vacant merely because some of the tenants have refused to vacate the premises. In this case, evidence has been adduced to show that the tenants were allowed to occupy the building only temporarily and they have agreed to vacate the premises when the other tenants vacate. Therefore, the said contention of the revision petitioners herein has also to be negatived. 32. Regarding the means of the landlords, the Rent Controller found that the same is not substantiated. Documentary evidence was adduced by the landlords to prove that they have got the means. Ex. A 54 were filed by the landlords to prove that they have got means. The total amount as per the above exhibits will come to nearly Rs. 1-1/2 lakhs. The Rent Controller was of the view that the project of reconstruction requires huge amount, and the mere production of those exhibits will not be sufficient to put up a multistoreyed building. 33. The approach of the Rent Controller is wrong. When we consider the question of reconstruction, it is not the liquid cash in the possession of the landlords that has to be taken into consideration. We need only consider whether the landlords have got the capacity or means to raise funds, and whether they will complete the project as envisaged by them. 34. Regarding the said fact, we have got the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. As against the same the tenants have not let in any legal contra evidence. The Appellate Authority, on an appreciation of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the landlords have got the capacity to raise funds and, therefore, have the means. The said finding is purely a finding of fact and needs no interference by this Court. 35. The only other contention that has to be considered is whether the landlords have come to court in good faith. 36. The Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the entire evidence and has held that there is no circumstance to find that the case of the landlords lacks bona fides. All the material circumstances have been taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority. Whether the landlords have come to court with bona fides or not is also a finding of fact with which the Revisional Court will be slow to interfere. 37. All the material circumstances have been taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority. Whether the landlords have come to court with bona fides or not is also a finding of fact with which the Revisional Court will be slow to interfere. 37. I do not find any merit in all these Revision Petitions, and accordingly, all the C.R.Ps. are dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.