Judgment 1. Landlord is the revision petitioner. 2. The landlord filed petition under Secs.10(2)(ii)(a) and (b) and 10(2)(iii) and 14(i)(b) of the Rent Control Act contending as follows: The petitioner has purchased the petition mentioned property by a registered sale deed dated 21.2.1990. The first respondent had occupied the petition mentioned thatched house as tenant under petitioners vendor Subbiah Mudaliar for non-residential purpose and he was running a vegetable stall. He is liable to be evicted. The first respondent made a partition of the business by putting up a masonry partition wall and sub-leased the eastern half to the second respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.300 and is retaining the western half and using it for vending vegetables. After receipt of the petitioners lawyers notice, the first respondent removed the partition wall overnight and even after removal of the partition wall, the second respondent is continuing as sub-tenant under the first respondent. The further allegation of the petitioner is that the construction of the partition wall was later demolished and the projection of the thatched slopping roof on the west of the premises are substantial alterations of the demised premises materially affecting the value or utility of the building and on this ground also, the respondents is liable to be evicted. The building is very old and it requires demolition and reconstruction. The petitioner has got sufficient means to put up a new construction and on this ground also, the respondents are liable to be evicted. So, the petitioner asked for eviction on the ground of sub-letting and demolition and reconstruction. 3. The respondents filed written statement contending as follows: The second respondent is not a sub-tenant and he is employed under the first respondent and the shop exists as one portion only and no alteration was also done by the respondents and the building is in a very good condition. The petitioner is having several buildings in Thiruthuraipoondy Town and the requirement of the petition mentioned property is not bona fide. 4. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground of sub-letting and demolition and reconstruction. 5. On appeal, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller. 6. As against that order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the landlord. 7. 4. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground of sub-letting and demolition and reconstruction. 5. On appeal, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller. 6. As against that order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the landlord. 7. Point for consideration is whether the first respondent had sub-let the premises and whether the requirement of the landlord/revision petitioner on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. 8. Point No.1:The learned Rent Controller found that the first respondent sub-let the premises to the second respondent. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the first respondent sub-let the premises to the second respondent and is running a vegetable shop separately in the premises. The first respondent vehemently argued that the second respondent is working as an employee under him on monthly salary. But, he has neither filed any document nor chosen to examine the second respondent to prove the same. The Rent Controller relied upon Ex.P-21, certificate given by the Executive Officer, Thiruthuraipoondy Town Panchayat. It contains details of business tax levied on the second respondent for his doing vegetable business. P.W.3 was working as Bill Collector in the Thiruthuraipoondy Town Panchayat. He has spoken about the certificate Ex.P-21. The Rent Controller found that Ex.P-21 is a public record. Even though it was contended by the respondents that P.W.3 had not issued any certificate and his evidence should not be accepted, the Rent Controller proceeded to accept that evidence holding that it would not be wrong to accept the evidence of P.W.3 and also Ex.P-21 and from that document, it is seen that the second respondent has been doing vegetable business and so, the second respondent is a sub-tenant under the first respondent. It is an admitted fact that the second respondent is staying in the petition mentioned building as has been established by the evidence of the first respondent. The second respondent is doing vegetable business and he has been levied tax as evidenced by Ex.P-21. If really the second respondent is employed under the first respondent, there would not be any levy of tax on the second respondent and it would be only on the first respondent who has entered into oral agreement with the previous owner Subbiah Mudaliar. If really the second respondent is employed under the first respondent, there would not be any levy of tax on the second respondent and it would be only on the first respondent who has entered into oral agreement with the previous owner Subbiah Mudaliar. Purely basing on the fact that the second respondent is also running the business in that premises, he has been levied tax as evidenced by Ex.P-21. The appellate authority has found that as the person who gave Ex.P-21 was not examined and no step has also been taken for his examination, the evidence of P.W.3 in respect of Ex.P-21 cannot be accepted. On a perusal of Ex.P-21, it is seen that both the first respondent and the second respondent have been levied Professional Tax by Thiruthuraipoondy Panchayat. Ex.P-21 is a public document. P.W.3 who is employed in that office has spoken with regard to Ex.P-21. 9. Ex.P-21 is a certificate issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. P.W.3 has stated that Ex.P-21 was issued in the Town Panchayat Office and that he knows the petition mentioned shop and Santhanam. P.W.3 is a Bill Collector in that Panchayat Board who was authorised to collect tax. He has stated that he used to collect tax from the vegetable shop in the western side close to the road. He has stated that Ex.P-21 was given by the village officer. P.W.3 is employed in the Panchayat Union Office and he has spoken about that document. Simply because the Executive Officer who issued the certificate has not been examined, it cannot be stated that Ex.P-21 is not a true and valid document. That document has been duly signed by the Executive Officer, Thiruthuraipoondy Panchayat which bears the seal of Thiruthuraipoondy Panchayat Office which states that both the respondents have been levied Professional Tax. Mere non-examination of the Executive Officer will not establish that Ex.P-21 has not been proved. That being signed by the Executive Officer which bears the office seal can be accepted through the evidence of P.W.3 who is none other than a Bill Collector of the same office. So, it cannot be stated that Ex.P-21 cannot be accepted. The view taken by the appellate authority does not appear to be sound. That being signed by the Executive Officer which bears the office seal can be accepted through the evidence of P.W.3 who is none other than a Bill Collector of the same office. So, it cannot be stated that Ex.P-21 cannot be accepted. The view taken by the appellate authority does not appear to be sound. The Rent Controller has analysed the evidence and the certificate Ex.P-21 and has come to the conclusion that the second respondent is a tenant under the first respondent. The photographs Exs.P-13 to P20 show that the second respondent is carrying on vegetable business in separate portion by putting up a partition wall. The first respondent has not chosen to examine the second respondent to rebut the case of the petitioner. He has not even filed any document to prove that the second respondent was employed under him and he paid salary to the second respondent. When the petitioner asserts that the first respondent sub-let the premises to the second respondent, it is the duty of the first respondent/tenant to prove that the second respondent is not a sub-tenant and he is only a worker under him as contended by him. The first respondent has miserably failed to do so. When there is a documentary evidence Ex.P-21 to establish that the second respondent was also carrying on vegetable business and was being levied professional tax, when the photographs also clearly establish that there is partition in that premises and there is a vegetable shop being run separately, it can be safely concluded that the first respondent has sub-let the premises to the second respondent as alleged by the landlord/petitioner. So, the view taken by the appellate authority that there is no sub-letting by the first respondent does not hold good and the finding of the learned Rent Controller with regard to sub-letting is sustainable. So, the finding of the learned appellate authority with regard to sub-letting is liable to be set aside. 10. Point No.2:With regard to demolition and reconstruction, the Rent Controller found that the requirement on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is bona fide The Rent Controller relied upon the plan for construction Ex.P-7 and sanction order Ex.P-8. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner has not sufficient means for reconstruction. 10. Point No.2:With regard to demolition and reconstruction, the Rent Controller found that the requirement on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is bona fide The Rent Controller relied upon the plan for construction Ex.P-7 and sanction order Ex.P-8. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner has not sufficient means for reconstruction. The appellate authority has found that the permission was granted on 18.6.1991 and in that order, it is stated that the order is subject to the proceedings in the court and the present case being filed on 11.7.1990, there is no bona fide on the part of the petitioner in seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Further, the appellate authority has found that there is no document to show that the petitioner has got sufficient means to construct the building. Ex.P-7 plan has been sanctioned by the Panchayat Office, Thiruthuraipoondy. The sanction order was obtained on 12.6.1990. It is stated in Ex.P-7 that subject to the order of the court, permission is granted to put up construction as per the plan. On a perusal of Ex.P-7, it is seen that permission is granted for putting up construction as per the plan sanctioned on 12.6.1990. The case is filed on 11.7.1990 only after obtained sanction of plan by the Panchayat. Ex.A-8 is the renewal order renewing the permission from 12.6.1991 to 11.6.1992. The renewal order is passed on the petition given by the petition on 11.6.1991. The plan was sanctioned even prior to filing of the petition. The construction could not be carried on. So, the landlord gave petition for renewal of permission and obtained the renewal order Ex.P-8. As the petitioner had already obtained sanction from the Panchayat with regard to construction of the building prior to filing of the petition, it cannot be attributed any made fide on the part of the petitioner to seek eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The petitioner/landlord wants to demolish the petition mentioned building and to reconstruct it. As the petitioner had already obtained sanction from the Panchayat with regard to construction of the building prior to filing of the petition, it cannot be attributed any made fide on the part of the petitioner to seek eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The petitioner/landlord wants to demolish the petition mentioned building and to reconstruct it. He has also stated that he is a Chemical Engineer and he is the Secretary in the Gandhi Peace Mission and he has planned to put up a branch of the Gandhi Mission Office in the petition mentioned building for which purpose, he has obtained a plan to put up a new building and make a shopping complex on the eastern portion thereof and let out the same and have the branch office of the Gandhi Peace Mission office in the upstair portion. The evidence establishes that the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction. The petitioner has got intention to put up a new building by demolishing the old one. The learned Rent Controller, on facts, has found that it was not disputed on the side of the respondents that the petitioner has sufficient means to put up new building. The petitioner has got sufficient means to put up the new building and he has obtained necessary sanction even prior to the filing of the petition. The petitioner/landlord wants to put up a new building by demolishing his old building with modern facilities and for increasing his income. The petitioner has got every right to put up a new building at his own choice. The respondents contend that the petitioner is having other buildings and he could occupy those buildings for Gandhi Peace Mission Office. The tenant has no right to command the petitioner as to which place he has to choose for putting up his office. The landlord is at liberty to put up the building to the best use by reconstructing it with modern facilities. He wants to expand his income by putting up a new building by demolition and reconstruction. 11. Viewed at any angle, it cannot be stated that there was mala fide on the part of the petitioner to seek eviction of the respondents on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. He wants to expand his income by putting up a new building by demolition and reconstruction. 11. Viewed at any angle, it cannot be stated that there was mala fide on the part of the petitioner to seek eviction of the respondents on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. On a perusal of the evidence, it is seen that it has been clearly established that the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and the respondents are liable to be evicted on this ground also. The view taken by the appellate authority is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. Eviction is ordered. Time for vacating the petition mentioned building is four months. No costs.