Judgment : 1. The tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has filed this civil revision petition against the concurrent order passed by both the Authorities below under Sec. 14 (1) (a) of the Act, directing the petitioner herein to hand over possession of the petition-building to the respondent landlord for the latter to carry out the repairs to the said building. 2. Before referring to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, I may point out the reasoning of learned lower Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.30 of 1996, which can be gathered from the following passages appearing in its order:- 3. The only two submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is, (1) the undertaking that is given by the respondent 1 and lord pursuant to Sec. 14 (2) of the Act, is not in accordance with law and (2) even though the Municipal Authority, as mentioned in the extracted passage, has given permission for demolition of the building in question, the respondent has not chosen to file the petition under Sec. 14 (1) (b), but has wrongly preferred the petition under Sec.14 (1) (a) of the Act. 4. I shall deal with the second submission first. It has also been dealt with by the lower Appellate Authority, as shown in the above extracted passage. Despite the abovesaid argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any error in the reasoning of the lower Appellate Authority in this regard. When, for demolition itself permission has been granted, it cannot be contended that petition under Sec.14 (1) (a) of the Act would not lie. When the respondent-landlord chooses to seek a lesser remedy, which is actually more favourable to the petitioner-tenant, the latter cannot contend that the lesser remedy cannot be sought for at all and that only the larger remedy of completely evicting the petitioner under Sec.14 (1) (b) should be sought for. 5. Regarding the first of the abovesaid two submissions, first of all, it must be stated that no specific ground has been taken in the civil revision petition, stating that the undertaking given is in any way not in accordance with law. Learned counsel also did not point out how the said undertaking given is not in accordance with law. 5. Regarding the first of the abovesaid two submissions, first of all, it must be stated that no specific ground has been taken in the civil revision petition, stating that the undertaking given is in any way not in accordance with law. Learned counsel also did not point out how the said undertaking given is not in accordance with law. Further, no plea has been taken in the counter to the R.C.O.P., stating that the said undertaking is in any way not in accordance with law. The said undertaking is given in paragraph 8 of R.C.O.P. thus:- "The petitioner is ready to hand over the petitioner mentioned premises to the respondent after completing the above referred to major repairs within three months from the date of delivery of possession. The petitioner is hereby giving undertaking to hand over the petition mentioned premises to the respondent after completing the above referred major repairs within three months from the date of possession." This undertaking is in accordance with the relevant provisions in Sec.14 (2) (a) of the Act, which alone speaks of such undertaking. 6. No doubt, learned Counsel for the petitioner, draw my attention to ground No. 13 in the memorandum of civil revision petition, In essence, it only seeks to say that "the Authorities below have not made any order in writing regarding the undertaking of the landlord." This ground also has no merit. In the light of the above observations extracted from the order of the lower Appellate Authority, it can certainly and easily be inferred that the lower Appellate Authority has in effect made the order in writing regarding the required undertaking of the landlord. 7. Further, even the learned Rent Controller, in his order has observed thus:- Thus, the Rent Controller has also passed the requisite order relating to the undertaking. 8. Therefore, the decision in Alamelu v. Visalakshi, 91 L.W. 423 relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the present facts. What was no doubt held in that decision is that the giving of under-taking under Sec. 14 (2) (b) of the Act is a condition precedent for an order under Sec. 14 (1)(b) of the Act. But that condition precedent has been fulfilled in the present case, as mentioned above. That decision also turned on entirely different facts. 9. What was no doubt held in that decision is that the giving of under-taking under Sec. 14 (2) (b) of the Act is a condition precedent for an order under Sec. 14 (1)(b) of the Act. But that condition precedent has been fulfilled in the present case, as mentioned above. That decision also turned on entirely different facts. 9. In the result, the Civil revision petition is not admitted, but dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. No.3682 of 1997 is dismissed. After the above said order is pronounced, learned counsel for the petitioner requests for a months time for vacating the petition premises. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent submits that 15 days time could be given provided, he files an usual affidavit within a short time. Since the Court closes by 30th April, 1997, time is granted till 30th April, 1997, provided, the petitioner files an affidavit within a week undertaking to vacate positively the building in question within the time allowed.