ORDER: Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.1509 of 1993 on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Madras is the revision petitioner herein. 2. Landlord filed eviction petition on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. According to landlord, the building is more than 80 years old and situated in one of the most important places of Madras. He wanted to put up a shopping complex in Door Nos.788 and 789 with modern facilities and to augment his income. He averred that he got financial capacity to put up new construction and also taken permission from local authorities to demolish the structure. Statutory undertaking is also given. According to landlord. the claim is bona fide. 3. As against the said contention petitioner herein disputed the genuineness of the claim. According to petitioner, landlord himself moved an application for fixation of fair rent in respect of very same premises and obtained an order getting enhancement of rent. That shows the lack of good faith in filing the present application. It is further submitted that when landlord wanted to demolish Door Nos.788 and 789, no evidence have been let in to show what steps he had taken to evict the tenant in Door No.788. It is further submitted that he has also obtained Engineer’s report and R.W.2 has been examined to substantiate the report filed by him. Courts below have not discussed the evidence of R.W.2 and material piece of evidence was omitted to be considered. Counsel also submitted that the building only requires repair and not demolition and the claim is not bona fide. 4. On the above pleadings, parties went on trial. Before the Rent Controller, Exs.P-1 to P17 were marked on the side of petitioner and Exs.R-1 to R-10 were marked. Ex.P-17 and R-1 are reports of the Engineer. A Commissioner was deputed to inspect the building and he also filed report Ex.C-1 oral evidence consist of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2. After evaluating entire evidence, Rent Controller held that the claim of landlord is bona fide. Rent Controller held that landlord has purchased the building in an auction in the year 1940, but during that time the building was in existence. Evidence of P.W.2 was also relied on to hold that the building might have been 70 years old. P.W.2 has said that on the top of the building. Rent Controller held that landlord has purchased the building in an auction in the year 1940, but during that time the building was in existence. Evidence of P.W.2 was also relied on to hold that the building might have been 70 years old. P.W.2 has said that on the top of the building. the date of construction of the building is also noted as 1926. 5. Rent controller further held on the basis of Ex.C-1, that the building is not in good condition and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. Regarding financial capacity of the landlord, Rent Controller discussed various documents filed by landlord and held that landlord is in very good financial position to put up construction. Landlord has also obtained plan and licence for putting up construction as evidenced by Exs.P-4 and P-5. Licence was also obtained is clear from Ex.P-7. Trial court further held that in regard to Door No.788 landlord initiated another Rent Control proceedings as R.C.O.P.No.1510 of 1993 and on receipt of summons tenant therein vacated the premises. Landlord also obtained possession on the same. The claim was found to be bona fide and tenant was directed to vacate the premises. 6. Against the said finding tenant filed R.C.A.No.1280 of 1996 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority also did not find any reason to take a different conclusion and all the findings of Rent Controller was confirmed. The appeal was dismissed. The concurrent findings of authorities below are challenged in this revision petition 7. Since caveat was entered by respondent, I heard the revision at the admission stage itself. 8. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that how to prove the bona fides of claim is declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (1997)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 98: (1996)6 S.C.C. 475 and the same was not taken into consideration by the authorities below and therefore this Court will be justified in interfering with the concurrent finding. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment which reads thus: “10. On reading Sec.14(1)(b) along with Sec.16 it can be said that for eviction of a tenant on the of demolition of the buildings for erecting a new building, the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human habitation. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment which reads thus: “10. On reading Sec.14(1)(b) along with Sec.16 it can be said that for eviction of a tenant on the of demolition of the buildings for erecting a new building, the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human habitation. If that was the requirement there is no occasion to put a condition to demolish within a specified time and to erect a new building on the same site. Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.16” contemplates that permission has been granted by the Rent Controller under Sec.14(1)(b) for demolition of the building, but if such demolition is not carried out in terms of the order and undertaking, then the Rent Controller can order the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions. If the building is dangerous and dilapidated requiring immediate demolition for safety, then there is no question of the Rent Controller directing the landlord to put the tenant in possession of such building on the original terms and conditions, on account of the failure of the landlord to commence the demolition within the period prescribed. Similarly, there was no occasion to link the demolition of such building with erection of new building and then to give the landlord freedom from the restrictive provisions of the Act for a period of five years from the date on which the construction of such new building is completed and notified to the local authorities concerned. In this background, it has to be held that neither of the extreme position taken by the respondent or the appellants can be accepted. Permission under Sec.14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller on mere asking of the landlord, that he proposes to immediately demolish the building in question to erect a new building. At the same time it is difficult to accept the stand of the appellants that the building must be dilapidated and dangerous, unfit for human habitation. For granting permission under Sec.14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bona fide or not. For granting permission under Sec.14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bona fide or not. For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bona fide, the Rent Controller has to take into account; (1) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial position of the statutory requirements of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Sec.14(1)(b). No court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with other factor and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller. 11. It appears from the facts of the present appeals that the building in question was an old one and was situated inn a very busy locality of the town where a number of buildings in and around the building in question had been demolished and shopping complex had been constructed with modern amenities. The respondent also wanted to demolish the entire building in order to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary permission from the municipal authorities had already been obtained. It had also been claimed on behalf of the respondent that she had sufficient financial resources for construction of the new building. An undertaking had also been given on behalf of the respondent that she had sufficient financial resources for construction of the new building. An undertaking had also been given on benefit of the respondent that the work of demolition of the building would commence within one month and would be completed before the expiry of three months from the date the said respondent recovered possession of the building. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the controller had passed an order in terms of Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act directing the appellants who were tenants in the building in question to deliver possession of the building to the respondent. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the controller had passed an order in terms of Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act directing the appellants who were tenants in the building in question to deliver possession of the building to the respondent. According to us, all relevant factors have been taken into consideration and there is no scope for any interference by this Court." 9. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, I do not think that the submission of learned senior counsel could be accepted. 10. It is clear from the above decision that for eviction under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act, it is not necessary that the building should be in dangerous condition and unsuitable for human habitation. To prove the bona fides their Lordships of Honourable Supreme Court have given certain guidelines which I have already extracted. Lordships also held that the said guidelines are not exhaustive, and they may differ taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. I will first take into consideration the physical condition of the building. P.W.2 is an Engineer who prepared Ex.P-17 report. He has given vivid picture of the building, and how far the building is damaged. He inspected the building on two or three occasions in the presence of tenant. He was thoroughly cross-examined. But nothing could be extracted from him which goes against the interest of landlord. 12. As against the evidence of P.W.2 we have the evidence of R.W.2 who prepared Ex.R-1 report, One of the main contention of petitioner is that the evidence of R.W.2 was not discussed by the authorities below. I do not think that the submission of learned counsel could be accepted. Through R.W.2, photographs were taken and lower court held that R.W.2 has not taken photographs of entire building but only of some portions of the premises, which is not sufficient to hold that the building is in good shape. 13. It is true that to a certain extent the evidence of R.W.2 goes in favour of petitioner. At the most we could see lot of dissimilarity between the evidence of P.W.2 and R.W.2. But we have the evidence of Advocate Commissioner who prepared report in this case. As against him, petitioner has no allegation. Ex.C-1 is the report prepared by the Commissioner. I need only extract the report in its entirely, which reads thus: “2. The building is facing the East. But we have the evidence of Advocate Commissioner who prepared report in this case. As against him, petitioner has no allegation. Ex.C-1 is the report prepared by the Commissioner. I need only extract the report in its entirely, which reads thus: “2. The building is facing the East. The building consist of two floors. The petition premises is fur rounded by a compound wall which is in a dilapidated condition. The vacant portion around the building is covered by concrete flooring which is also in a bad condition and has developed cracks. A healp of rubbish is found in the North-East side of the building. There are tow stair cases one the northern side of the building and another is the other side. The stair-case in the northern side of the building leads to a small room and a Verandah. 3. There is a open space after the small room. The side walls of the stair -case are in a dilapidated condition. The walls of the small room has also developed cracks. In the southern side of the building there is a garage. The northern side of the garage wall is having a vertical crack. In the Western side walls roots of” Arasa maram “ have made cracks in the walls. The terrace of the building is Madras terrace. The roof of the premises have developed lot of cracks. 4. The ground floor of the building consists of two rooms. ceiling of the room has no cracks. Cracks are found in the northern wall. The office room door is made up of plywood, Wooden frame of the door is not in good condition as the frame has been eaten by white-ants. 5. There are three big rooms in the right side of the first floor. The beam of the rooms have developed cracks. The roof of the first floor is fully cracked. The southern side beam of the first floor is also cracked. The northern side window beam is damaged and the iron rods in the beam are visible. Cracks are there in the start-case. The two rooms in the leftern side of the first floor is in good conditions. The ceiling of the two rooms has no cracks. 6. The parapet wall of the terrace has developed lot of cracks. The terrace there is a head room and the glasses in the need room are found broken. Cracks are there in the start-case. The two rooms in the leftern side of the first floor is in good conditions. The ceiling of the two rooms has no cracks. 6. The parapet wall of the terrace has developed lot of cracks. The terrace there is a head room and the glasses in the need room are found broken. In the parapet wall of the terrace lot of grown-up trees. The sub-shade is made up of Mangalore tiles. There is a smoke chimney in the terrace, which is in good condition. 7. The counsel for respondent engaged a photographer to take photos of the petition premises. It was decided that the photographer may be used to take photos. I am filing the photographs taken by the photographer along with this report. 8. I completed the inspection by 6.00 p.m. and both the counsels for petitioner and respondent were present. I hereby return the warrant along with the report and photographs and negatives.” 14. I need not further explain the condition of the building when Commissioner herself has given a vivid picture of the present state of the building. 15. Rent Controller has taken into consideration the statement of P.W.2 in Ex.P-17 wherein it is said thus: The fact that there is no beam to support the ceiling is not disputed. Evidence also shows that the building is situated in one of the most important place at Madras and situated close to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Office at Annasalai. Regarding the nature of construction and materials used, it is a second class building is also spoken to by P.W.2. The materials used for construction are not of good quality. Which has affected the stability of the building. P.W.2 has further stated that the utility of the building is over and it is beyond repair. The evidence of Commissioner along with the evidence of P.W.2 read with Ex.P-17 shows that the building requires demolition and reconstruction. When both the authorities below have accepted the evidence adduced by landlord regarding physical condition of the building, I do not think that under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, I can interfere in those findings. Ex.R-1 or evidence of R.W.2 also not helpful to tenant to contend that the building is in good condition. When both the authorities below have accepted the evidence adduced by landlord regarding physical condition of the building, I do not think that under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, I can interfere in those findings. Ex.R-1 or evidence of R.W.2 also not helpful to tenant to contend that the building is in good condition. Even if we ignore Ex.P-17 and R-1, Ex.C-1 report fully supports the case of landlord to hold that the building is not in good condition. 16. Regarding financial capacity of landlord he has produced various documents to show how he is in good financial position. He has got other buildings of his own where from he is getting rental income. He has also produced various partition deeds to show that he is the owner of properties and he has got capacity to raise funds. Landlord has also produced estimate for putting up new construction and plan and licence to have the same constructed, I do not find any doubt in the bona fides of the claim. 17. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that landlord wanted to put up building complex by demolishing Door Nos.788 and 789. Scheduled building is Door No.789 and no evidence have been adduced to show that tenant occupying door No.788 has surrendered vacant possession. I do not find any merit in the submission. Even before Rent Controller this argument was put forward. Against the tenant who occupied Door No.788, landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.1510 of 1993 before Rent controller. Before Rent Controller a submission was made that after filing Rent Control Petition, he surrendered vacant possession and landlord occupied vacant site. The said submission made by counsel was accepted by Rent Controller and therefore Rent Controller held that there is no necessity to consider what happened to Door No.788, when landlord has obtained possession of the same (See pages 17 and 18 of certified copy of order of Rent Controller). 18. This finding of Rent controller was not challenged before the appellate authority. Even now petitioner has no case that landlord has not obtained possession of D.No.788. What learned counsel submitted is that there is no record to show that landlord has obtained possession of door No.788. 19. 18. This finding of Rent controller was not challenged before the appellate authority. Even now petitioner has no case that landlord has not obtained possession of D.No.788. What learned counsel submitted is that there is no record to show that landlord has obtained possession of door No.788. 19. A feeble argument was taken by learned senior counsel that if the building was in dilapidated condition landlord would not have applied for fixation of fair rent only to get the reasonable rent he entitled to get under the statute. The submission of learned senior counsel is without any merit. 20 By filing application for fixation of fair rent, landlord is only seeking the assistance of court permitting him to realise the rent which is allowable by law. He is not seeking enhancement of rent though while fixing fair rent landlord may get enhanced rent. Landlord is seeking assistance