Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 479 (MAD)

Venugopal v. P. T. Ravichandran and others

2001-04-17

P.THANGAVEL

body2001
Judgment : This civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2001 and made in R.C.A.No.544 of 1997 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, reversing the finding dated 24.2.1997 of the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, with regard to act of waste and demolition and reconstruction, but sustaining the order of the said Court with regard to wilful default in R.C.O.P.No.1508 of 1998. 2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this civil revision petition are as follows: The respondents herein are the landlords of the premises described in the rent control petition and the revision petitioner, who is the respondent before the Rent Control Court, is the tenant of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.170. The revision petitioner became a tenant of the said premises under the previous owner Lakshmi Ammal and her children. The respondents herein have purchased the premises in question on 7.5.1987 from their vendors for proper and valid consideration and the fact of purchase of the said premises was also informed to the revision petitioner. A notice was sent on 15.6.1987 and a reply containing untenable allegations was sent by the revision petitioner. The rent was not paid from May, 1987 and therefore, a notice dated 16.3.1988 was again sent by the respondents herein to the revision petitioner. A reply was sent on 23.3.1998 along with a cheque for Rs.630 towards arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.70 per month. The above said cheque was returned by the respondents herein. The revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent. The revision petitioner has changed the tiled roof of a portion of the premises under his occupation by zinc sheet unlawfully, thereby committing act of waste. The building in which the revision petitioner is in occupation of a portion, is a old and dilapidated building and therefore, the premises is required for demolition and reconstruction. The respondents herein undertake to commence demolition of the building and complete the same as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ( hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’). The respondents have sufficient means for demolition and reconstruction and they have also taken steps for obtaining an approved plan for the new construction at the demised premises. The respondents have sufficient means for demolition and reconstruction and they have also taken steps for obtaining an approved plan for the new construction at the demised premises. It is on these grounds, the respondents herein as landlords, have come forward with this petition for eviction. 3. There vision petitioner as respondent/ tenant before the Rent Control Court, resisted the claim made by the respondents herein as landlords on the following grounds: The sale of the premises by the previous owners to the respondents herein on 7.5.1987 was not intimated to this revision petitioner by the respondents herein, but came to know about the said sale on 15.6.1987 through one of the former owners Durairaj. A letter was sent by this revision petitioner to the former owners to disclose the address of the purchasers of the said premises and the same was received on 7.7.1987. No reply was sent by the former owner disclosing the address of the purchasers of the premises in question. Thereafter, rent was sent by this revision petitioner to Lakshmi Ammal, the former owner, from June 1987 by money order and the same was refused. It is therefore, a cheque for Rs.630 was sent by the revision petitioner to the respondents herein for the rent upto February, 1988 on 23.3.1988 and the same was also refused to be received by the respondents herein. The revision petitioner has not committed wilful default in payment of rent. The former owners agreed to sell the property to him and permitted him to effect repairs by spending money by the revision petitioner. The former owner had also agreed to deduct the expenditure to be incurred for effecting the repairs by changing roof from tiles to zinc sheets out of the sale consideration. Therefore, this revision petitioner had spent about Rs.20,000 for effecting change of roof from tiles to zinc sheets in the last month of 1985 and beginning of 1986. Therefore,the revision petitioner has not committed act of waste. The building is in good condition and there is no need for demolition and reconstruction of the same. The petition cannot be maintained for demolition and reconstruction without obtaining approved plan for the same. It is on these grounds, the revision petitioner as respondent before the Rent Control Court sought for dismissal of the rent control petition. 4. The building is in good condition and there is no need for demolition and reconstruction of the same. The petition cannot be maintained for demolition and reconstruction without obtaining approved plan for the same. It is on these grounds, the revision petitioner as respondent before the Rent Control Court sought for dismissal of the rent control petition. 4. The first petitioner/ first respondent herein Ravichandran was examined as P.W.1 and Thangarajan, the father of the respondents herein was examined as P.W.2. The Engineer of the respondents herein M.K. Srinivasan was examined as P.W.3 before the Rent Control Court Exs.P-1 to P-58 were marked before the learned Rent Controller. The revision petitioner Venugopal was examined as R.W.1 and the Engineer K.Sankaran was examined as R.W.2. One Damodaran, who is the tenant of the premises described in R.C.O.P.No.1513 of 1988 was examined as R.W.3 before the Rent Control Court, Ex.R-1 to R-20 were marked on the side of the revision petitioner. After considering the material evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the respondents herein as landlords have failed to establish all the three grounds referred to above for getting an order of eviction against the revision petitioner and another tenant in R.C.O.P.No.1513 of 1988 and accordingly dismissed the petitioner filed for eviction by the respondents herein. Aggrieved at the order and decretal order dated 24.2.1997 and made in R.C.O.P.No.1508 of 1988 on the file of learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the landlords as appellants preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.544 of 1997 on the file of learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after considering the material evidence available on record and in the light of the submissions made on both sides, has come to the conclusion that the respondents herein as landlord have not established that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent, but established that the revision petitioner has committed an act of waste and the requirement of the premises in question for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. Accordingly, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ordered eviction of the revision petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of act of waste and requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction. Accordingly, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ordered eviction of the revision petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of act of waste and requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction. Aggrieved at the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2001 and made in R.C.A.No.544 of 1997 on the file of learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the tenant as revision petitioner has come forward with this civil revision petition. 5. Admittedly, the building in which the revision petitioner is in occupation of a portion originally belonged to one Lakshmi Ammal and her sons and the revision petitioner became a tenant of the premises under his occupation in the year 1965. Though the respondents herein had claimed the monthly rent at Rs.170 from the revision petitioner, the stand taken by the revision petitioner that the rent for the demised premises under his occupation is only Rs.70 per month was acceptable not only to the learned Rent Controller but also to the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, the quantum of rent payable by the revision petitioner to the respondents herein at Rs.70 per month for the premises under his occupation was set at rest by the authorities below. No dispute was raised before this Court by either side with regard to the quantum of rent payable by the revision petitioner to the respondents herein. The concurrent finding of the authorities below that the revision petitioner had not committed wilful default in payment of rent was also set at rest and the same was also not raised for consideration before this Court by both parties. 6. The first point to be considered in this civil revision petition is whether the revision petitioner has committed act of waste by changing the roof from tiles to zinc sheets so as to warrant eviction of the revision petitioner from the denied premises. According to the respondents herein, the revision petitioner has changed the tiled roof to zinc sheet roof in a portion of the premises under his occupation without the consent of the landlords and therefore, he has to be evicted from the demised premises. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, per contra, contends that the revision petitioner has not committed act of waste and therefore, he cannot be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of act of waste. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, per contra, contends that the revision petitioner has not committed act of waste and therefore, he cannot be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of act of waste. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner has changed the tiled roof to zinc sheet roof in a portion under his occupation in the end of 1985 and the beginning of 1986. The revision petitioner was the tenant of the said premises under on Lakshmi Ammal and her sons then. They have not sent even a notice to the revision petitioner with regard to the change of roof of a portion under his occupation before sale of the entire building in which the premises under the occupation of the revision petitioner is a portion. The respondents herein had purchased the building, in which the revision petitioner is in occupation of a portion, on 7.5.1987 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000 from Lakshmi Ammal and others as seen from Ex.P-40 copy of the sale deed and the respondents herein were put in possession of the said building only on the date of sale. The respondents herein have become owners/ landlords of the said building only on 7.5.1987. There is dispute as to when the purchase was informed to the revision petitioner by the respondents herein and the same is not relevant for consideration to decide the issues before this Court. The evidence of P.W.2 would disclose that P.W.2 as father of the respondents herein had questioned Lakshmi Ammal as to why she had permitted the revision petitioner herein to change the roof formalities to zinc sheets after the purchase of the property. It is not even his case that Lakshmi Ammal had stated to him that she had not permitted the revision petitioner to change the roof from tiles to zinc sheets. The abovesaid evidence of P.W.2 would also lead to conclude that the revision petitioner herein had changed the roof from tiles to zinc sheets only to the knowledge and consent of the former owner, namely, Lakshmi Ammal. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the respondents herein, who had purchased the building in which the demised premises is a portion, long after the change of roof, cannot come forward with a petition for eviction on the ground of act of waste. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the respondents herein, who had purchased the building in which the demised premises is a portion, long after the change of roof, cannot come forward with a petition for eviction on the ground of act of waste. 7. In the pleadings in the petition filed for eviction, the respondents herein as petitioners have stated that the roof was changed from tiles to zinc sheets illegally and high-handedly; but, there is no averment in the pleadings that such change of roof has materially impaired the value or utility of the building. In the evidence on the side of the respondents herein also, there is no acceptable evidence as to how such change of roof has materially impaired the value or utility of the building. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, a decision reported in R.R.Dinakaran v. S.L.Chinna Kuppuswami R.R.Dinakaran v. S.L.Chinna Kuppuswami R.R.Dinakaran v. S.L.Chinna Kuppuswami 99 L.W. 678 wherein Natarajan, J., (as he then was) has held as follows: “….It may be seen that what is envisaged is commiting of acts of waste which are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building. In other words, the act of the tenant must be such as would prejudicial affect the interests of the landlord by either lowering the value of the building or by reducing its utilitarian value for being let out for the same purpose for which it had been let out, or for allied purpose. Therefore, it goes without saying that every act of a tenant, even if it is not permitted by the landlord, will not amount to an act of waste, as contemplated under Sec.10(2)(iii) of the Act. It is only a harmful act which is contemplated under Sec.10(2)(iii) of the Act, namely, an act of waste which impairs materially or affects adversely the value or utility of the building.” 9. In G.Arunachalam (died) through L.Rs. and another v. Thondarperienambi and another G.Arunachalam (died) through L.Rs. and another v. Thondarperienambi and another G.Arunachalam (died) through L.Rs. and another v. Thondarperienambi and another A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 977 the act of wooden planks has been replaced by rolling shutters, but the wooden planks have not been removed. For fixing the rolling shutter, the party has lowered the front portion of the floor by 17 cm. and another v. Thondarperienambi and another G.Arunachalam (died) through L.Rs. and another v. Thondarperienambi and another A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 977 the act of wooden planks has been replaced by rolling shutters, but the wooden planks have not been removed. For fixing the rolling shutter, the party has lowered the front portion of the floor by 17 cm. For lowering this floor level the stone steel plate at the top of the basement has been cut down carefully, and refixed at the new level (i.e.) 17 cm. below the original floor level. In the circumstances of that case, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold that the act referred to above done by the tenant will not affect the stability or value of the building. 10. In C.Kailaschand Jain and two others v. Mohamed Kasim C.Kailaschand Jain and two others v. Mohamed Kasim C.Kailaschand Jain and two others v. Mohamed Kasim (1995)1 MLJ. 267 : (1995)1 C.T.C. 47 a learned single Judge of this Court, after holding the question whether there is an interfered with in revision, had held that change of shutters and doors with rolling shutters and removal of cement flooring and putting up mosaic flooring all in the nature of remodeling will not affect the utility of the building through such an act of tenant might have added to the value of the building by putting up better appearance. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court that unless it is found that the changes resulted in diminishing the value of the building, it will not amount to an act of waste in Pratap Narain and another v. District Judge, Azamgarh and another Pratap Narain and another v. District Judge, Azamgarh and another Pratap Narain and another v. District Judge, Azamgarh and another A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 111. In A.Duraiswai v. A.Arumugam A.Duraiswai v. A.Arumugam A.Duraiswai v. A.Arumugam (1997)2 MLJ. 401 : (1997)2 L.W. 346 and A.Gurusami v. Dr. (Mrs.) A. Jacob (died) and others A.Gurusami v. Dr. (Mrs.) A. Jacob (died) and others A.Gurusami v. Dr. (Mrs.) A. Jacob (died) and others (1998)2 MLJ. 544 : (1998)2 C.T.C. 563 a learned single Judges of this Court had held that unless the changes made impaired materially the value or utility of the building, it cannot be said that the tenant has committed act of waste. (Mrs.) A. Jacob (died) and others A.Gurusami v. Dr. (Mrs.) A. Jacob (died) and others (1998)2 MLJ. 544 : (1998)2 C.T.C. 563 a learned single Judges of this Court had held that unless the changes made impaired materially the value or utility of the building, it cannot be said that the tenant has committed act of waste. As it is already pointed out, there is no acceptable evidence that the change of root from tiles to zinc sheets in a portion of the premises under the occupation of the revision petitioner has impaired materially the value of utility of the building and therefore, it cannot be held that the revision petitioner has committed act of waste in changing the roof as mentioned above. In view of the said position, this Court is not able to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority that the act of the revision petitioner in changing the roof will amount to act of waste. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 11. The next point that arises for consideration is whether the requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide or not. According to the respondents herein, the building purchased under Ex.P-40 from Lakshmi Ammal and others by the respondents herein is old and dilapidated, that the said premises is situate in heart of the city namely, at Pondy Bazaar, that demolishing and reconstructing a building in the said premises is a must and it will also augment the income, that the respondents herein are having sufficient means to demolish and reconstruct the said building, that they have already initiated steps and also obtained approved plans for such demolition and reconstruction and that therefore, the requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends contra to it. Admittedly, there were 7 tenants in the above said building and this revision petitioner is one of the tenants occupying a portion of the building. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends contra to it. Admittedly, there were 7 tenants in the above said building and this revision petitioner is one of the tenants occupying a portion of the building. It is not in dispute that at the request of the respondents herein for demolition and reconstruction, 5 of the 7 tenants have vacated and delivered possession to the respondents herein and the said portions are lying vacant after demolition of the said portions as per the undertaking given to the competent Court in the petitions filed for eviction against them. The other tenant Damodaran against whom the petition in R.C.O.P.No.1513 of 1988 was filed for eviction on this ground and other grounds had also vacated the demised premises under his occupation after completion of enquiry but before pronouncement of the order in the rent control petitioner filed against him. Therefore, it is evident that all the other six tenants had already vacated and delivered possession to the respondents herein to enable them to demolish the building and to reconstruct in the said premises. The revision petitioner alone is contesting by stating that the requirement for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide. A Commissioner was appointed in this mater and he has submitted his report Ex.C-1 and photos Ex.C- 2. A perusal of Ex.C-1 report would disclose that the Mangalore tiles in the top of the northern corner near the outlet is in damaged condition. It is also evident from the said report that the plastering is of mud and lime mortar. The roofing and pat of the building is in dilapidated condition. It is also evident from the said report that there are some holes in the roof and the roof is covered by thorny bushes and creepers. There is no reason to suspect the report by the commissioner. The report of the commissioner Ex.C-1 would disclose that the building is not in good shape and it is in dilapidated condition. 12. R.W.1 has admitted that the wall has been constructed with clay and mud. R.W.2 an Engineer examined on the side of the revision petitioner herein has also admitted that there are cracks of 2 feet length in the middle of the wall. The abovesaid fact also strengthened the report filed by the Commissioner after inspection of the demised building. 12. R.W.1 has admitted that the wall has been constructed with clay and mud. R.W.2 an Engineer examined on the side of the revision petitioner herein has also admitted that there are cracks of 2 feet length in the middle of the wall. The abovesaid fact also strengthened the report filed by the Commissioner after inspection of the demised building. Based on these evidence, it can be safely concluded that the building is in dilapidated condition. In Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal Vijay Singh and others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (1997)1 MLJ. (S.C.) 98: (1996)2 C.T.C. 586: (1996)6 S.C.C. 475 the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold as follows: “On reading Sec.14(1)(b) along with Sec.16 it can be said that for eviction of a tenant on the ground of demolition of the building 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…Permission under Sec.14(1)(b) cannot be granted by the Rent Controller on mere seeking 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, unit 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 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 sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to 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. 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 factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller”. The above said decision has been followed by this Court (P.Thangavel, J.) in M.M. Iliyas and another v. M.R.Pakkirisamy M.M. Iliyas and another v. M.R.Pakkirisamy M.M. Iliyas and another v. M.R.Pakkirisamy (2000)3 C.T.C. 321 , S.Saraswathi Ammal (deceased) and two others and held that the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction will be bona fide if the three conditions referred to above by the Honourable Supreme Court are fulfilled. In this case, this revision petitioner alone has not been sought to be evicted, but also other six tenants, who were in occupation of the demised premises, were sought to be evicted on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the sole object of the respondents herein is only to get rid of the revision petitioner from the demised premises. The age and condition of the building is in dilapidated condition for the reasons already stated supra. The second condition has also been complied with by the respondents herein. Ex.P-31 is the pass book and Exs.P-32 to P-39 are fixed deposit receipts standing in the name of the respondents herein and admittedly, the amounts standing in Exs.P-31 to P-39 work out to Rs.8 lakhs. Exs.P-41 to P-45 are demand notices or tax receipts standing in the name of the father of the respondents herein. The said building is also situate in an important locality in Madras City. The Authorities below after considering the above said documentary and oral evidence have come to a concurrent finding that the respondents herein are having sufficient means for demolition and reconstruction of the building. 13. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein and their father are running departmental stores at three places in T.Nagar and they are earning out the said business. 13. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein and their father are running departmental stores at three places in T.Nagar and they are earning out the said business. Since the father of the respondents herein, who had given evidence in support of the respondents herein for requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction, is owning substantial property of value, which according to him worth about Rs.one crore and the said fact could not be denied by the revision petitioner herein. While he was examined as witness before the Rent Control Court, the said property might be used for raising loan for construction of the building if the amount in hand and the amount they will get through business are not sufficient to construct a new building in the demised premises. The existence of the two buildings referred to above will also be a source of inspiration of the respondents herein to start and construct a building with the amount of Rs.8 lakhs, which they have already in hand. In view of the circumstances stated supra, this Court is also of the view that the respondents herein are having sufficient means for demolition and reconstruction of the building in the demised premises. The above said facts will lead to conclude that the respondents herein had complied with the three conditions imposed by the Honourable Apex Court in the case cited above to hold as to whether the requirement of the building is bona fide for demolition and reconstruction or not. 14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the respondents petitioners have no right to file and maintain this petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction without applying for plan and licence for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein contends, contra to it. In Sherwood Educational Society, etc. v. Abid Namazie and others Sherwood Educational Society, etc. v. Abid Namazie and others Sherwood Educational Society, etc. v. Abid Namazie and others (1997)1 L.W. 323 it has been held that the statute does not say that only when approved plan is filed before Court, eviction could be ordered. It is only one item of evidence to prove the bona fides. v. Abid Namazie and others Sherwood Educational Society, etc. v. Abid Namazie and others (1997)1 L.W. 323 it has been held that the statute does not say that only when approved plan is filed before Court, eviction could be ordered. It is only one item of evidence to prove the bona fides. If blueprints are field and the landlords express their bona fide intention to put up a building on the basis of the approved plan unless there is some oblique motive to doubt their veracity, the same have to be accepted. In L.Puttalingam v. L.Sivalingam L.Puttalingam v. L.Sivalingam L.Puttalingam v. L.Sivalingam (2000)1 L.W. 153 it has been held that under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act production of plan and licence is not made a condition precedent for ordering eviction. It is only one of the items of evidence that are necessary for proving the claim of the landlord as bona fide. It is settled law that mere non production of plan and licence at the time of eviction petition or late production will not be a ground to doubt the bona fides of the landlord. In A.Balasundaram v. T.Balasubramaniam (Deceased) and others A.Balasundaram v. T.Balasubramaniam (Deceased) and others A.Balasundaram v. T.Balasubramaniam (Deceased) and others (2000)3 L.W. 419 it has been held that before taking possession of the property, the landlord will have to produce plan and licence before the Executing Court and Executing Court will satisfy itself and only on satisfaction of production of copy of plan and licence, order of delivery will be issued. In that case, eviction petition was filed in the year 1986. If the learned landlord is asked to file plan and licence, he will have to renew the same year after year and by this time, the very purpose of getting plan and licence will become infructuous. Original plan and licence cannot be used for constructing a building at present. The Building Rules might have been changed now. So, taking into consideration of these facts, it was held by the learned Judge that it cannot be said that non-production of plan and licence will disentitle the landlord from getting the tenant evicted from the demise premises. In this case, the respondents herein had filed the sanctioned plan on 13.4.1989 as seen in Ex.P-26 for demolition. Charges were paid for the above said plan as seen in Ex.P-27. In this case, the respondents herein had filed the sanctioned plan on 13.4.1989 as seen in Ex.P-26 for demolition. Charges were paid for the above said plan as seen in Ex.P-27. Ex.P-28 is the challan showing the payment of demolition charges. Ex.P-29 is the blue print plan for reconstruction in the demise premises. Ex.P-48 is the sanctioned plan for reconstruction in the year 1992. Exs.P-51 and P-52 are permits for demolition and reconstruction respectively. The abovesaid documents would disclose that the respondents herein had taken every effort to get sanction not only or demolition of the building in the demised but also for reconstruction of the building in the said premises and obtained permits, licence and sanctioned plans there for. If the above said facts are taken into consideration in the light of the case laws cited above, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondents herein cannot maintain an application for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction without applying for demolition and reconstruction cannot be sustained. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has come to a correct conclusion that the requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction by the respondents herein is bona fide. Accordingly, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is sustained. 15. In fine, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is confirmed so far as it relates to demolition and reconstruction; but the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is set aside so far as it relates to act of waste. In view of the finding that the demised portion is required bona fide for demolition and reconstruction, the civil revision petition filed by the revision petitioner is dismissed and eviction is ordered. Time for vacating the demised premises two months. The costs of Rs.1,000 is awarded to the respondents herein from the revision petitioner. In view of the dismissal of the main civil revision petition, the petition in C.M.P.No.6092 of 2001 is closed as unnecessary.