Judgment : 1. The tenants in applications under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act; Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act) are the revision petitioners. 2. The respondent landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 1993 against the revision petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 2096 of 1996 and R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1994 against the revision petitioners in Civil Revision Petition No.2097 of 1996 before the District Munsif (Rent Controller) at Padmanabapuram. Though the premises in their occupation bear different Door Nos. namely, 17 of 1968 and 17 of 1969, it is not disputed that, both the premises have the same roof and are part of the same building in the same Survey No.B7/97-2 belonging to the respondent within Padmanabapuram Municipal limits. The eviction of the revision petitioners was sought on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. 3. The allegations in both the petitions are common and are as under: The schedule property belonged to one Yanock Nadar, the father of the respondent landlord. He put up houses in his properties under Door Nos. 17-68 and 17-69 of Padmanabapuram Municipality and rented out the same to the revision petitioners. The revision petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 2096 of 1996 started Tea and Hotel business under the name and style ‘Uduppi Hotel’ and at the time of filing the eviction petition, the rent was Rs.200 per month. After the death of his father, the respondent b ecame entitled to the property and the tenants were paying the rent to him. The building is a tile-roofed katcha building and in a dilapidated condition and may fall down at any moment in the event of any minor natural calamity. It is also due for demolition and reconstruction with a new building. The respondent requested the petitioners in the respective revision petitions to quit and deliver vacant possession so that he may be able to develop his properties by-putting up new terraced buildings by replacing the existing old one. Though they agreed to surrender the property, they did hot keep their promise. The respondent got a plan and estimate for the proposed building sanctioned by the Municipality. He also has made available the necessary funds for putting up the construction, his requirement is bona fide. The property needs development to yield good income. Though they agreed to surrender the property, they did hot keep their promise. The respondent got a plan and estimate for the proposed building sanctioned by the Municipality. He also has made available the necessary funds for putting up the construction, his requirement is bona fide. The property needs development to yield good income. The respondent called upon the petitioners by a notice dated 11. 1993 demanding surrender of possession by cancelling the tenancy right to which they sent replies refusing to comply with the demand. The petitions for eviction were, therefore, necessitated. 4. The petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 2096 of 1996 resisted the petition for eviction on the following contentions: The building is a regular building and a pucca one and not a katcha building as alleged. It is a tiled building but is not in a dilapidated condition. It will not fall down at any moment in the event of any minor natural calamity. This allegation is made mischievously to cook up a cause of action. The building is not old and it is also not due for demolition or reconstruction. The allegation that the respondent had been requesting the petitioner to surrender the building is false. He has only been demanding enhanced rent out of avarice, even though the rent was increased manifold only in September, 1990. The revised rent is above the fair rent. Even after he filed the petition for eviction, the respondent had sent notices demanding enhanced rent on 31. 1994. The respondent is a Teacher, who also undertakes drawing plans for building as a part time avocation. He wields a lot of influence and to make it appear that the requirement for demolition and reconstruction is genuine, he may have got some plan prepared and got approved by the Municipality. The petition is not bona fide. The allegation that he is ready with funds is also made with ulterior motive. The building is not in such a condition that demolition is necessary. There is no damage that renders it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs. Routine maintenance would do. The respondent has purposely avoided in giving the date of construction. Even if that is 45 years old as reported by the Commissioner, section l4(l)(b) of the Act will not be attracted. There is no damage that renders it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs. Routine maintenance would do. The respondent has purposely avoided in giving the date of construction. Even if that is 45 years old as reported by the Commissioner, section l4(l)(b) of the Act will not be attracted. Even after allegedly terminating the tenancy, the respondent had received rent and, therefore, he is estopped from continuing with the petition. 5. The other revision petitioners in Civil Revision Petition No.2097 of 1996 have put forward identical contentions as has been done by the revision petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No.2096 of 1996 and it is not necessary to repeat the same. .6. Even at this stage, certain other developments have to be referred to. The revision petitions were filed on 112. 1993. On 1. 1994, the respondent took out an application for the appointment of an advocate Commissioner to ascertain and report the then existing conditions of the petition schedule building stating the differences for the portions coming in the front road side under maintenance comparing the same with the portions coming in the back side separately, the conditions of the walls and roof including wooden beams, rafters, reapers and other wooden pieces of the roof stating the extent of ant eaten wooden parts and the existence of superstructure, the newly put up concealed ceiling by Vemba Thatti purposely put up from the appearance of damaged roof and also report this Vemba Thatti is painted with black coloured tar and the details pertaining the eye washed maintenance under progress, the age of the petition schedule building, and the physical features of petition schedule property and other adjoining building and properties. 7. The affidavit in support of the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner inter-alia stated that the tenant, after receiving the notice of the case from the Court, was making hasty repair works in the suit building by erecting Vemba ceiling, etc. with an intention to cover the damaged roofs including ant eaten wooden beams, rafters and reapers and making other repairs and also painting only to make it appear that the building was in good condition. An ex parte Advocate Commissioner was appoin ted and he also filed his report on 04. 1994. After calling for objections from the tenants, the application for appointment of Commissioner was closed. An ex parte Advocate Commissioner was appoin ted and he also filed his report on 04. 1994. After calling for objections from the tenants, the application for appointment of Commissioner was closed. We will refer to the details of the Commissioner’s report in the course of the order. 8. The respondent landlord examined himself as PW1 and one Kunju Perumal as PW2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.21 on his side while the tenant / respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 1993 examined himself as RVTi and on the side of the revision petitioners / tenants Exs.R.l to R.4 were marked. The Commissioner’s report was marked as C. 1. 9. The learned Rent Controller framed the necessary points for consideration and held that the respondent landlord had not made out a case for invoking Section 14(l)(b) of the Act that he had played fraud on the Court by procuring documents as if the building was in a dilapidated condition, that he was not entitled to in order of eviction. 10. On appeal by the landlord in R.C.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 1995, the learned Subordinate Judge (appellate authority) accepted the case of the landlord and reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction by allowing the appeals. As against the orders of eviction passed against them, the revisions petitioners have filed the present revision petitions. .11. Mr.S.D.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners in both the civil revision petitions, vehemently contended that the respondent landlord had influenced people in the Government Departments and had procured documents to show that the building was in a dilapidated condition, that he had played a fraud on the Court and had become disentitled to any indulgence from the Court. The learned counsel also relied on two judgments in this connection. One of the Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Lrs. v. Jagannath (dead) by Lrs. & others , 1994 (1) L.W. 21 and the other of this Court in Sherwood Educational Society, Etc. v. Abid Namazie and two others , 1997 (1) L.W. 323 . 12. The learned counsel also relied on two judgments in this connection. One of the Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Lrs. v. Jagannath (dead) by Lrs. & others , 1994 (1) L.W. 21 and the other of this Court in Sherwood Educational Society, Etc. v. Abid Namazie and two others , 1997 (1) L.W. 323 . 12. Per contra, Mr.K.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / landlord, submitted that even without the records from the Public Works Department, on the basis of the Commissioner’s Report, it has been held that the requirements under Section 14 (l)(b) of the Rent Control Act have been satisfied, that the appellate Authority has eschewed the stability certificates issued by the Government Department and that on an independent appraisal of the other materials on record chose to reverse the decisi on of the Rent Controller and order eviction under Section 14(i)(b) of the Act. 13. Let us now first dispose of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revision petitions relating to the alleged fraud played on the Court. Ex.A.11 dated 111. 1994 is the communication from the Executive Engineer, Palayamkottai to the counsel for the landlord regarding structural stability of the building in response to the counsel’s letter dated 210. 1994 and 11. 1994. The Assistant Engineer inspected the property on 110. 1994 and the Executive Engineer on 111. 1994. T hey have certified that the building is not structurally sound and fit for occupation. There is reference to the proceedings of the District Munsif, Padmanabapuram in Ex.A.11. The proceedings referred to is I.A. No.1704 of 1994 in R.C.O.P. No.6 of 1993. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the respondent landlord had misled the Court into passing- an order in the I.A. summoning the records from the Executive Engineer, Padmanabapuram, that stability certificate is a make believe affair, and that the respondents had manipulated the said certificate with the assistance of one of his tenants, whose father is working as Engineer in the Public Works Department. .14. The learned Rent Controller has elaborately referred to this in paragraph 13 of his order and has observed that the respondent has used his influence in the Department and has created these documents. .14. The learned Rent Controller has elaborately referred to this in paragraph 13 of his order and has observed that the respondent has used his influence in the Department and has created these documents. May be, the respondent has overdone the whole thing in his anxiety to get the necessary records for making out the case for eviction under Section 14(l)(b) of the Act. But a proper analysis of what had happened does not show the respondent in such a bad light as has been made out by the Rent Controller and sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. In I.A. No. 1704 of 1994 what was ordered was a direction to the authority concerned to provide the respondent with a copy of the certificate of stability relating to the building. But as per the order of the Rent Controller, it would appear that the respondent, only after obtaining such an order, made the Engineer concerned to inspect the property and thereafter, certify about the stability of the building. As noticed earlier, this was because of ever anxiety and not on account of any conscious intention to create records in his favour. The Rent Controller was not justified in characterising the whole thing as smacking of mala fides. 15. In view of what is stated above, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners will not apply. I would not dub whatever the respondent did in his over zealousness as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is not a deception to gain by another’s loss. It is not a cheating intended to get an advantage. Whatever may be, the Rent Controller chose not to rely on the certificate of stability alleged to have b een procured by the respondent. 16. However, he found that the respondent had not made out a case for demolition and reconstruction. The Commissioner’s report, according to the learned Rent Controller, did not show that the building required demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller observed that the respondent had not established that the schedule property was in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition. 17. However, on appeal, the appellate Authority went into the question and found that the requirements under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act were satisfied. The learned Rent Controller observed that the respondent had not established that the schedule property was in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition. 17. However, on appeal, the appellate Authority went into the question and found that the requirements under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act were satisfied. The appellate Authority did not place any reliance on Ex. A. 11-stability certificate but relied on other materials and held that the building required immediate demolition and reconstruction. 18. It should also be noticed that the respondent found the tenants making hasty repair works by erecting Vemba ceiling with a view to cover the damaged roof including the ant eaten wooden beams, rafters and making other repairs with a view to camouflage the totally dilapidated condition of the building and the respondent got an Advocate Commissioner appointed to visit the property and make a report and the ingredients regarding which will now follow: The Advocate Commissioner found that the building at the time of inspection was aged 45 years. He visited the property in January and February 1994. It would also be worthwhile to extract what the Advocate Commissioner mentioned under various points: “Point No. 1 : The building is aged about 45 years. When we look at the top portion of the roof, it is slightly lowered in level in two places. In the front hall three lengthy reapers were re-placed to support the tiles by removing the old white ant eaten reapers. In the front hall the old vemba thatties were re- placed by new Vemba thatties and painted with black coloured tar. However some portion still remains un-covered. During my visit I saw the the old damaged Vemba thatties in the backward. Point No.2: The walls were built up by sun-burnt bricks. In the southern wall of the inner Varantha ie., the northern wall of the Central hall (seems to be central wall), there are two cracks. The cracks are having the width of about two inches, for other wall also there are some minor cracks here and there. Above the central wall mentioned above there was a wooden beam supporting the roof. To support the beam three resting stones were given. Among the three resting stones the eastern resting stone had fallen down. The central resting stone is sitting in a slipping condition. The beam was slightly lowered about 1/2 feet, from its original position. Above the central wall mentioned above there was a wooden beam supporting the roof. To support the beam three resting stones were given. Among the three resting stones the eastern resting stone had fallen down. The central resting stone is sitting in a slipping condition. The beam was slightly lowered about 1/2 feet, from its original position. A wooden pillar was given in the central portion to support the beam. The rafters and reapers were eaten by the white ants here and there. In the inner varantha on the eastern portion two rafters were damaged and broken, therefore to support the rafters and the roof two long reapers were given on either side and tied together along with the rafters. In the kitchen portion some rafters were slightly lowered, and therefore three sticks were given in cross and they were tied together along with the rafters. Point No.3: As already stated in point No.1 in the front hall only some portion of the bottom of the roof was covered with new vemba thatties. The old and damaged Vemba thatties which were placed in the place of the new thatties were seen in the backyard of the building. The other portion of the building was not covered with Vemba thatties the upstair, on the eastern room ten new pattial (reaper) pieces were newly put up. Since the old thatties were seen in the back-yard and the other portions in which the new pattial pieces etc. were not covered with Vemba thatties, I am of the opinion that the Vemba thatties were not purposely put up to hide the appearance of the repairs made in the building. No other maintenance work is visible in the building. Point No. 4 : The building is aged about 45 years. Point No.5: The petition schedule building is a tiled building. Its roof is slightly lowered in two places. Its superstructures were ant eaten here and there. The damaged reapers were re-placed by new reapers. On the western side of the petition schedule building there is a cloth shop named “Absara Textiles”. The building is a terrace building. On the eastern side of the petition schedule building there is a Vettil nut shop which is a tiled building and which is more or less, in the same condition of the petition schedule building.” 19. The tenants have not filed any objection to the Commissioner’s report. The building is a terrace building. On the eastern side of the petition schedule building there is a Vettil nut shop which is a tiled building and which is more or less, in the same condition of the petition schedule building.” 19. The tenants have not filed any objection to the Commissioner’s report. The report stands uncontroverted. The report of the Commissioner clearly shows that the building is in a very bad state of disrepair and it is dilapidated, that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction, that the tenants particularly the tenants in’ R.C.O.P. No.6 of 1993 had made a clandestine attempt to conceal the dilapidated condition of the building by erecting Vemba ceiling with a view to cover the damaged roof with th e wooden beams and that rafters also were attempted to be blocked from the view. 20. When the Commissioner’s report stands unchallenged regarding the condition of the building, the appellate Authority was perfectly justified in relying on the same and accepting the case of the respondent landlord. The requirement of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act regarding the condition of the building is clearly satisfied. Not only that, the respondent has got the plan approved by the Municipality even on 3. 1991 under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 is the estimate relating to Ex.A.1. Ex.A.3 is the renewal of Ex.A.1 for a further period of three years from 1994 and Ex.A.4 is the certificate of funds issued by the respondent’s Bank that he had the necessary wherewithal to commence demolition and put up reconstruction. The bona fide requirement of the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction has been clearly made out as found by the appellate Authority. 21. In a recent judgment in Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal , 1996 (6) SCC 475 : 1996 (2) CTC 586 : 1997 (1) L.W. 218, the following criteria have been laid down for making out the case for an order of eviction under Section 14(i)(b) of the Act: .(i) Bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants. .(ii) The age and condition of the building. (iii) The financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. .(ii) The age and condition of the building. (iii) The financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. These three conditions are indubitably satisfied in the instant case and it is no longer to be looked down upon, if the landlord has some business proposition in view. He can seek demolition and reconstruction for augmenting his income. The appellate Authority was satisfied that the respondent landlord had made out a case for demolition and reconstruction. 22. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the appellate Authority and there are no merits in these Civil Revision Petitions and the same are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost. 23. Mr. Balaji, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in both the revisions, seeks time to vacate the premises. The revision petitioners will have six months’ time to quit and deliver vacant possession subject to their filing an affidavit of undertaking with the usual default clause within two weeks from today.