Judgment :- 1. Saraswathi, the landlady represented by her power agent Mohan Kumar having lost in both the authorities below, has approached this Court by filing this civil revision petition challenging the impugned orders. 2. The landlady, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 1989. According to her, the building in question which is used for the godown of the tenant/respondent is in a damaged condition and if the existing building is demolished and reconstructed, the petitioner would put the property for better use. She has also obtained the building licence and taken steps to have the plan approved. The petitioner bona fide requires the petition building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, since the building is old. The petitioner and her family possessed sufficient means to construct the new building. 3. According to the tenant, the respondent herein, the requirement for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. She has been demanding for the enhanced rents. Since the same was not settled, the petition has been filed under the garb of requirement for the demolition and reconstruction. 4. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence, oral and documentary adduced by both parties, rejected the prayer for eviction as there is no material to show that it requires immediate demolition and as such the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide and there is also no material to show that she is having sufficient means for reconstruction. 5. On being aggrieved by this order, the landlady filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.27 of 1992. During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, she filed an application in I.A.No.17 of 1995 requesting for the reception for the additional documents, in order to substantiate that the landlady has got sufficient means for demolition and reconstruction. 6. Even then, appellate authority though concluded, on the basis of the Advocate Commissioners report, that the condition of the building requires demolition, it came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient means for the demolition and reconstruction and as such, her requirement on the said ground is not bona fide This finding is being challenged in this revision petition before this Court. 7. 7. Mr.R.Sekar representing M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, while assailing the orders impugned, would state that the Appellate Authority having held after considering the Commissioners report that the condition of the building is such that requires demolition, it ought not to have come to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlady was not bona fide. 8. It is also pointed out that the Appellate Authority having taken into consideration the additional document, Ex.A-7, though rejected the other documents, as those documents were obtained only after filing of the petition for eviction, should not have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has no sufficient means for the demolition and reconstruction. 9. He would further bring to the notice of the court that the rejection of those documents and the ground for rejection as per the appellate authority on the basis that those documents were obtained only subsequent to the filing of the petition for eviction cannot be said to be factually correct, inasmuch as out of these documents, document No.2 was obtained prior to the filing of the application and document Nos.3 and 4 alone were obtained subsequent to the filing of the application which would show the tax were paid for subsequent period and as such, the appellate court ought to have taken into consideration those documents as well. 10. In reply to the said submissions, the counsel for the respondent/tenant, in justification and support of the judgments of both the authorities below, would submit that the question of bona fide being a question of fact has been elaborately dealt with by the authorities below and it cannot be lightly interfered with in the revisional jurisdictions under Sec.25 of the Act. 11. He would further submit that the reasonings for holding that the requirement was not bona fide and to conclude that there is no sufficient means for demolition and reconstruction are sound, inasmuch as there are materials to come to such conclusion and as such the impugned orders are liable to be confirmed. 12. I have carefully considered the said submission. The eviction is sought under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act mainly on the ground of bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction. According to the landlady, she intended to demolish the existing building and put up a new terraced building in the present place for two reasons. Firstly, the building is old and damaged. I have carefully considered the said submission. The eviction is sought under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act mainly on the ground of bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction. According to the landlady, she intended to demolish the existing building and put up a new terraced building in the present place for two reasons. Firstly, the building is old and damaged. Secondly, the rent received is low for the area in the occupation of the respondent and if reconstruction is made, she would be able to get more rent and put the property for better use. The contention of the tenant that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide and that the application has been filed only in order to get higher rent. Therefore, in the light of the rival contentions, it has become necessary for the petitioner/landlady to establish that her requirement is bona fide. 13. In order to show the bona fide she has to prove that the condition of the building is very bad and that she has got sufficient means to undertake the project of demolition and reconstruction. The materials available on record shall be considered in the light of the fact that there should not be any dishonest or oblique motive to evict vacate the tenant. Therefore, the aspect of the bona fide must be clearly established by the landlady to the satisfaction of the court. 14. The Rent Controller, while considering the aspect regarding the condition of the building, held that there is no acceptable material to show that the building requires immediate demolition. As correctly pointed out by the appellate court, the rent controller has failed to consider the plan as report of the Advocate Commissioner marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2. Though the rent controller has made a passing reference to the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, he has not taken into consideration the entire report, which would clearly reveal that the condition of the building is such, that it requires demolition. 15. The appellate authority has correctly taken the view that rent controller finding is wrong inasmuch as the whole report of the Advocate Commissioner has not been taken into account in the proper perspective by the rent controller. 15. The appellate authority has correctly taken the view that rent controller finding is wrong inasmuch as the whole report of the Advocate Commissioner has not been taken into account in the proper perspective by the rent controller. Therefore, as held by the appellate authority, the Advocate Commissioners report as well as the damages depicted in the Commissioners report would certainly make this Court to accept the contention of the petitioner that it is in a highly damaged condition. 16. Furthermore, the Commissioners report would state that there are cracks on the wall portion and damages in the wall i.e., plastered out with cement merger, window frames are partly damaged, crack developments in the basement portion, deep crack developed in the terrace, the flooring is fully damaged at the rear portion of the hall and the rear portion of the building which is said to be in the possession of the landlady is not used by anybody including the tenant and that area is completely damaged and refuters are damaged and in dilapidated condition. 17. In the Commissioners report, it is, further stated that the entire flooring and walls were completely damaged and that there is possibility of falling down at any moment. When such being the case, the rent controller ought to have given a finding on the basis of the above conditions of the building. The appellate authority also found fault with the finding of the rent controller with reference to this aspect and therefore, it can be safely concluded that the premises in question is in a highly damaged condition which requires demolition and reconstruction. 18. But unfortunately, the learned appellate authority though concluded that the building requires demolition and reconstruction, has hastened to observe that the requirement was not bona fide merely because that there was no sufficient materials to prove that the petitioner landlady has got sufficient means to undertake the project of demolition and reconstruction. This is in my view, a patently illegal approach. 19. In this context, I shall refer to the documents which have been filed before the rent controller as well as before the appellate authority. Before the rent controller, P.W.1, the son of the landlady has given evidence to show that his family has got sufficient means in the form of jewels etc. to incur the expenditure towards the project. There is no cross examination on this aspect. Before the rent controller, P.W.1, the son of the landlady has given evidence to show that his family has got sufficient means in the form of jewels etc. to incur the expenditure towards the project. There is no cross examination on this aspect. About this statement R.W.1 the tenant has not chosen to give any contrary evidence by refuting the said statement made by P.W.1 before this Court. 20. In the appellate court, as stated earlier, the petitioner, filed an application requesting the appellate authority to receive four additional documents in I.A.No.17 of 1995 in R.C.A.No.27 of 1992. The appellate authority though accepted only one document which is marked as Ex.A-7, rejected all the documents merely on the ground that the other three documents were obtained after filing of the R.C.O.P. and that therefore, those documents cannot be relied upon. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, this is factually incorrect. 21. As a matter of fact, document No.2 dated 7.10.1988 is prior to the filing of the R.C.O.P. and the other two documents though obtained by the respondents during the pendency of the R.C.O.P., those documents would relate to the bills of the wealth tax which could be considered and acted upon. On the strength of these documents, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that those documents should have been taken into consideration by the appellate authority and come to the conclusion that there are sufficient means to undertake the project of demolition and reconstruction. 22. From the materials available on record, as discussed above, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no means at all to have the project of demolition and reconstruction, especially when Ex.A-7 marked before the appellate authority would show that the petitioner has got some means. If the other documents not marked are taken into consideration, it can be concluded that there are sufficient means. 23. Even otherwise, it is settled law that as regards the ability of the landlords to demolish and reconstruct the building, if the landlords have proved that they are capable of raising funds for the purpose of such demolition and reconstruction, that would suffice for the purpose, especially when the bona fide of the landlord for requirement for demolition and reconstruction is established. 24. This aspect has to be looked into from more liberal angle. 24. This aspect has to be looked into from more liberal angle. The bona fide requirement of demolition has to be considered only on the basis of the condition of the building. Where the claim of the landlord on the ground of demolition and reconstruction of the building is bona fide and is not designed with a view to evicting the tenant, it is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the sanction for reconstruction has been obtained and that he has means to do the work. 25. Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act, stipulates that an order for eviction under the said section may be made, if the Controller is satisfied that the building is bona fidely required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolishing is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. 26. In the said section, the basic stipulations for passing an order of eviction is the test and satisfaction of bona fide requirement. Therefore, the bona fide requirement could be established by several ways and one important circumstance which ought to be take into consideration by the court is the condition of the building. 27. These principles have been laid down in the following decisions: 1. A.M.Batcha and another v. T.N.P.C. Ramachandran A.M.Batcha and another v. T.N.P.C. Ramachandran A.M.Batcha and another v. T.N.P.C. Ramachandran , 1979 T.N.L.J. 72. 2. Thayammal v. K.Subramaniam Thayammal v. K.Subramaniam Thayammal v. K.Subramaniam, (1989)1 MLJ. 407; (1989)1 L.W. 228 . 3. Appavu Grammani and another v. N.Jayalakshmi Ammal Appavu Grammani and another v. N.Jayalakshmi Ammal Appavu Grammani and another v. N.Jayalakshmi Ammal , (1971)2 MLJ. 296 . 4. A.N.Srinivasa Thevar v. Sundarambal alias Prema, W/o.Chandrakumar A.N.Srinivasa Thevar v. Sundarambal alias Prema, W/o.Chandrakumar A.N.Srinivasa Thevar v. Sundarambal alias Prema, W/o.Chandrakumar , (1995)2 L.W. 14 . 28. In the light of the above principles, in my view, the finding with reference to the bona fide requirement by both the courts below appears to be perverse, in view of the fact that the appellate authority has held that the rent controller has miserably failed to take into consideration the Advocate Commissioners report regarding the damaged condition of the building. Despite the appellate court has wrongly held that there is no bona fide requirement. 29. Despite the appellate court has wrongly held that there is no bona fide requirement. 29. As held by this Court as well as the Apex Court, no sufficient means alone could be a main criteria for considering the question whether there is a bona fide requirement or not, but the main criteria, would be whether the building requires demolition or reconstruction. 30. While this Court is conscious of the powers under Sec.25 of the Act which is so restricted, in my view, both the authorities below have committed serious illegality by giving a finding that the requirement was not bona fide, in the absence of any evidence to come to such a conclusion. 31. It is also pointed out that if the appellate authority has committed illegality by observing that when there is earlier demand made by the landlady for enhancement of rent, then that could be considered to arrive at a conclusion that the requirement is not bona fide. 32. This may not be the correct reasoning in the light of the observation made by this Court in the decision in Pappu Ammal by agent Pal Nadar v. Messrs. Lab Chemicals and another Pappu Ammal by agent Pal Nadar v. Messrs. Lab Chemicals and another Pappu Ammal by agent Pal Nadar v. Messrs. Lab Chemicals and another, 1991 L.W. 219 which is as follows: “Anothor factor which has been taken into consideration by the courts below in negativing the bona fide of the landlady is that in 1962 there was a move by the landlady to get enhanced rent. This may not be a relevant factor to consider the question of bona fides in view of the fact that the present petition came to be filed practically a decade later. The anxiety on the part of the landlords to get reasonable rent due to change of times and costs of living and equally so the tenacity of the tenants to stick on to the old rents, will not always be a relevant factor to adjudge the question of bona fides one or the other way. Each case will have to be decided on its own facts”. 33. Under these circumstances, this revision petition has got to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed. No costs. The tenant is directed to evict the premises. Time for eviction two months from the date of receipt of this order copy.