Judgment :- The landlords in their attempt, to evict the tenant from the demised premises, failed before the courts below and the result is the filing of the above civil revision petition before this Court, by them as revision petitioners. 2. The petitioners claiming that they are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant, had filed R.C.O.P.No.35/87, on the file of the Rent Controller, Karur, for the eviction of the tenant, on the ground that the building is posing a danger to all the school going children, being in bad shape and that they require the premises for the purpose of demolition of the existing superstructure and reconstruction, in addition to additional accommodation, after demolition. 3. The respondent/tenant opposed the application contending, that the original superstructure was damaged in a fire, which took place in the year 1970, that they had constructed the existing superstructure, which belongs to them, that the petitioners/landlords are not entitled to claim right over the superstructure, further contending that the building does not require to be demolished, for the purpose of reconstruction, questioning the bona fide of the landlords also. 4. The learned Rent Controller, examining P.W.1 and R.W.1, marking as many as 16 documents on the side of the petitioners and three documents on the side of the respondent, analysed the same, which created doubt in the bona fide requirement of the petitioners, for demolition and reconstruction. According to the assessment of the learned Rent Controller, the landlords had failed to prove that the building is in a dangerous condition or in a dilapidated condition, requiring demolition and reconstruction. Further, he had concluded that it is proved by the respondent that the building in question, is in a sound condition, fit for occupation, not requiring demolition. He had rejected the contention of the tenant that the superstructure belongs to him. Thus concluding, the Rent Controller dismissed the application, for the eviction of the tenant, on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioners/landlords had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority in R.C.A.No.17/98. Before the Appellate Authority, (Sub Court, Karur), it seems a petition was filed, to let in additional evidence and the same was allowed. On that basis, Exs.P.17 to P.20 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioners/landlords had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority in R.C.A.No.17/98. Before the Appellate Authority, (Sub Court, Karur), it seems a petition was filed, to let in additional evidence and the same was allowed. On that basis, Exs.P.17 to P.20 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. The Appellate Authority, analysing the existing evidence, as well as the additional evidence permitted by him, came to the conclusion, that the building is in a bad shape and the requirement of the landlords is bonafide, for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. In this view, he allowed the R.C.A.No.17/88 on 19.8.1999, setting aside the order passed by the Rent Controller, allowing the R.C.O.P., ordering eviction. 6. The tenant, aggrieved by the eviction order by the appellate Court, had approached this Court in C.R.P.No.3175/93, complaining that the order passed by the appellate authority is erroneous, liable to be set aside, restoring the order of the Rent Controller. But this Court had confirmed the findings of the first appellate Court, that the landlords had proved about their preparation for the demolition and reconstruction, by producing documents, that the landlords had proved their means, to demolish the existing building and construct a new building in the premises, accepting the oral evidence of P.W.1, that the requirement of the premises by the landlords, for demolition and reconstruction is bonafide, not requiring to be doubted. Considering the fact that they are not challenged, as seen from the order passed by this Court dated 10.11.1997, the only argument canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant was that the landlords had not proved about the condition of the premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition only on the ground that the landlords had failed to prove about the condition of the premises, viz., that the same is in a dangerous condition or in a bad shape, requiring immediate demolition and reconstruction. That finding was not accepted by the first appellate court, in view of the additional evidence. Because of this fact, it appears, while the revision was argued before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant had urged the only point, that the landlords had not proved about the condition of the premises. That finding was not accepted by the first appellate court, in view of the additional evidence. Because of this fact, it appears, while the revision was argued before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the tenant had urged the only point, that the landlords had not proved about the condition of the premises. This Court considering the evidence available, to prove the condition of the building, that too by way of additional evidence, permitted by the first appellate Court, found no reason to interfere with the findings of the first appellate Court. Thus, concluding that the landlords had satisfied all the ingredients required for demolition and reconstruction including the undertaking, this Court had dismissed the revision petition, confirming the order of eviction passed by the first appellate Court. 7. The tenant aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision, challenged the same before the Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.6014/98. The Hon'ble Supreme Court hearing the submission of the parties, felt that sufficient opportunities were not given to the tenant, to lead rebuttal evidence, when the landlords were permitted to adduce additional evidence, which was the basis for the finding, regarding the condition of the building, which went against the tenant, reversing the order of the Rent Controller. In this way, in order to give an opportunity to the tenant, to lead rebuttal evidence, the dismissal order of the revision petition by this Court, was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority, to grant an opportunity to the tenant, to lead rebuttal evidence, if any. As seen from the remand order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, other findings of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority viz., the means of the landlords, their preparation said to have been made for the demolition and reconstruction, their means to reconstruct the building, are not at all disturbed. The remand order reads: "..., in our considered opinion, the Appellate Authority having permitted the landlord-appellant before it, to adduce additional evidence on the basis of which the finding of the controller was reversed, the tenant cannot be denied of the opportunity of giving rebuttal evidence. The remand order reads: "..., in our considered opinion, the Appellate Authority having permitted the landlord-appellant before it, to adduce additional evidence on the basis of which the finding of the controller was reversed, the tenant cannot be denied of the opportunity of giving rebuttal evidence. In the aforesaid premise, the impugned judgment of the High Court and that of the Appellate Authority are set aside and the matter is REMITTED BACK TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY to grant an opportunity to the tenant to lead rebuttal evidence, if any whereafter the Appellate Authority may hear the parties and conclude the proceeding." From the reading of the above remand order, it is crystal clear that the Apex Court had come to the conclusion that because of the additional evidence, permitted to be adduced by the appellate authority, the finding of the Rent Contoller was reversed and that finding is regarding the condition of the building alone. The Apex Court further felt that the tenant was not given an opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence. In this view, it is further felt by the Apex Court that an order passed, without giving full opportunity to the contesting party, should not be allowed to exist and in this view alone, enabling the tenant, to lead rebuttal evidence, the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority. In this view, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the landlords, the other findings rendered by the courts below shall remain in force, which will be further discussed infra. 8. After the remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.NO.6014/98, the matter was heard by the Appellate Authority. In order to rebut the additional evidence, on behalf of the tenants, R.Ws.2 & 3 were examined, in addition marking Exs.R4 to R34. It seems, no further evidence was let in, on behalf of the landlords. The Appellate Authority, taking into consideration the remand order of the Apex Court and considering the materials produced before him, on analysis, came to the conclusion, that the landlords had failed to prove the condition of the building as pleaded, viz., the same is in a dangerous condition, requiring immediate demolition and reconstruction, as concluded originally by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority, taking into consideration the remand order of the Apex Court and considering the materials produced before him, on analysis, came to the conclusion, that the landlords had failed to prove the condition of the building as pleaded, viz., the same is in a dangerous condition, requiring immediate demolition and reconstruction, as concluded originally by the Rent Controller. It is the further finding of the Appellate Authority, after the remand by the Supreme Court, that the tenant had proved by producing document, the soundness of the building, not requiring immediate demolition. He had also come to the conclusion, that the requirement of the landlords is not bonafide and the landlords had also failed to prove the means for demolition and reconstruction. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the appeal, confirming the eviction order in R.C.O.P. NO.35/87, which is under challenge in this revision. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Mr. T.R. Rajaraman and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. C.H. Pandian. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the Hon'ble Supreme had not set aside the findings of the courts below, regarding the bona fide means of the landlords, for the construction of the building and therefore, the appellate Court after remand, had exceeded its limit, in setting aside the findings, which reached finality and in this view, the said findings are liable to be erased. In support of the above contention, aid is sought from a decision in Mohan Lal v. Anandi Bai (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2177). 11. In the case involved in the above decision, after setting aside the findings of the lower courts, a direction was given, with reference to certain findings, which should be considered afresh. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court had held: "it cannot be presumed that all the findings of the lower Courts are necessarily set aside. The findings which the appellate court was not called upon to consider cannot be deemed to be set aside by it." Having this legal settled position, we have to see the High Court's order, as well as the remand order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The findings which the appellate court was not called upon to consider cannot be deemed to be set aside by it." Having this legal settled position, we have to see the High Court's order, as well as the remand order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As aforementioned, before this Court when C.R.P.No.3157/93, came up for hearing, the only point that was urged or canvassed, was that the landlords had not proved about the condition of the premises, thereby not requesting the Court to give findings on other issues, which were in controversy and decided by the courts below. In view of the specific stand taken by the tenant that the landlords had not proved about the condition of the premises, this Court had considered in paragraph-5 of the order, the soundness of the building based upon the oral evidence of P.W.1, as well as on the basis of the additional evidence adduced. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court felt, that when the matter came up, before the appellate Court, for the first time, opportunity was not given to let in rebuttal evidence, regarding the additional evidence adduced, on which basis, the finding of the Rent Controller was reversed. Therefore, when the revision came up before this Court, the findings rendered by the appellate Court, for the first time viz., regarding the sufficient means of the landlords for demolition and reconstruction, its bona fide preparation for demolition and reconstruction, are not at all differed. The only controversy before this Court was, regarding the condition of the building and that alone appears to have been questioned by the tenant, before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, when the matter was remanded for fresh disposal, with specific direction, the first appellate Court is not entitled to go beyond the scope of the remand and set aside the findings of the courts, including the High Court, regarding the bonafide means of the petitioners, for demolition and reconstruction and the preparation made by them, for this purpose. In this view, on the basis of the above decision, I am constrained to hold that the appellate authority had exceeded its limit, while disposing R.C.A.No.17/88 as per the order dated 22.9.1999. The Appellate Authority, after remand, had given a finding, as if there was a malafide intention on the part of the landlords, and this petition was aimed, in order to evict the tenant. The Appellate Authority, after remand, had given a finding, as if there was a malafide intention on the part of the landlords, and this petition was aimed, in order to evict the tenant. Therefore, the conclusion of the appellate Court at the end of paragraph-14 of his order, that the petitioners have failed to prove the bona fide requirement, has to be set aside. 13. Further, the conclusion arrived by the appellate authority, as seen from Paragraph-15 of its order, that the landlords had failed to prove their means, for the demolition and reconstruction, cannot be allowed to stand, in view of the conclusion reached by this Court, while passing the revision order, concluding that the landlords had sufficient means for the demolition and reconstruction, which is not set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In this view of the matter, the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority at the time of the dismissal of the R.C.A. after remand, is against the law, as held by the Apex Court. 14. Even assuming that these points could be raised once again, on the basis that the entire findings of the courts below were set aside, by the Apex Court, (which is not so), still I am of the view that the claim of the petitioners cannot be described as malafide one, intended to evict the tenant. It seems, after filing of the petition for eviction, on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, the landlords have filed a suit for bare injunction, restraining the tenant from carrying out any repairs, as seen from Ex.P.10. The evidence would go to show that there was an attempt by the tenant, to carry out the repairs, for the purpose of getting certificate of fitness, to run the school in the premises. If that is allowed, then the claim of the landlords that because of the bad condition of the building, they require the same for demolition and reconstruction, cannot be accepted. To preserve the ground really available, a suit was filed for injunction and there is nothing strange and on that ground, bona fide cannot be doubted. Because of the conduct of the tenant, the Apex Court had also observed, as seen from the remand order, that the tenant is not entitled to make any alteration/repair in the building in question. 15. Because of the conduct of the tenant, the Apex Court had also observed, as seen from the remand order, that the tenant is not entitled to make any alteration/repair in the building in question. 15. In the year 1992, as seen from Exs.P.11 & P.12, a petition was filed by these landlords, for the eviction of the respondent, on the ground of willful default, but it seems the said petition was dismissed for default, not restored. Pending an eviction petition, if the tenant had committed default, there is no bar for the landlords to invoke the willful default clause, for the eviction from the premises. This tenant had claimed the superstructure itself, as the one belonging to them, since they had constructed, which was not accepted by the courts below. If such a person had committed default, whether it is willful or not, only on that basis, the landlord might have filed a petition for eviction, and that will not affix the seal of malafide in the claim made by the petitioners in the year 1987. Unfortunately, the landlords have filed another R.C.O.P.No.37/93 for owner's occupation. It was dismissed on 11.8.1995. In this context, we have to see what is the claim made in this petition. In this petition itself, additional accommodation is claimed, after demolition and reconstruction, so that a larger building portion may be avilable for user. Therefore, the subsequent petition filed for additional accommodation, which was already claimed in this petition, in my considered opinion, fails to create any doubt about the bona fide requirements of the petitioners, which was accepted by the courts below, not liable to be raised once again. In this view, we have to see whether the Appellate Authority was right in concluding, that the building is not in a dangerous condition and therefore, the requirement of the landlords for demolition and reconstruction, is unwarranted or tainted with malafide. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent contended, that the concurrent findings of the courts below is not liable to be disturbed, since there is no perversity, in the matter of appreciation of evidence, by the authorities below, placing reliance in South India Corporation Agencies Limited v. Chandrakanth C. Badani ( 1998 (1) MLJ 685 ). 16. The learned counsel for the respondent contended, that the concurrent findings of the courts below is not liable to be disturbed, since there is no perversity, in the matter of appreciation of evidence, by the authorities below, placing reliance in South India Corporation Agencies Limited v. Chandrakanth C. Badani ( 1998 (1) MLJ 685 ). By going through the findings of the courts below, it is not possible to say, that there is no perversity or the case was approached from proper perspective, applying the correct provisions of law. In this view of the matter, the above rulings may not come to the aid of the tenant, and still it is open to this Court, to find out the correctness of the lower Courts' verdict. since it appears to my mind, that both the courts below have approached the case from the wrong point of view. The main ground for the dismissal of the petition, by the Rent Controller is that the landlords had failed to prove, that the building is in a dangerous condition, causing insecurity to the inmates and therefore, it should be followed, there is no bonafide. This finding is more or less accepted by the appellate authority, after remand. 17. As the law now stands, it is not always mandatory, that if a claim is made for demolition and reconstruction by the landlord, the building must be in a bad shape, threatening to fall, or in a dilapidated condition, then only the landlord can have the requirement for demolition and reconstruction. In this context, we have to see the guideline formulated, by the Apex Court, in this regard. 18. In Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (1997 (1) MLJ 98), the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has ruled, what are the factors to be taken into consideration by the Rent Controller, for granting permission under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and they are: (1) bonafide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; and (3) The financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. Even as observed by the Apex Court, these are some of the illustrative factors, which have to be taken into consideration, while deciding a case under Section 14(1)(b) and while considering the condition of the building, age alone could not be the criterion, for passing an order of eviction, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The Apex Court has further ruled "the building need not be dilapidated or dangerous for human habitation." It is also further observed:- "If the building is dilapidated and dangerous 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 the 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 positions taken by the respondent-landlord or the appellants-tenants can be accepted." 19. In Amaiyappa Transport v. N.S. Rajulu, ( 2002 (9) SCC 437 ), following the ruling of the Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh's case, the Apex Court has ruled: "the term "immediate" as qualifying demolition suggests the proximity of purpose and not the proximity of time or the urgency of demolition." From the materials placed by the landlords, if it is shown that the building is bona fidely required by the landlords, for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and for the purpose of erection, then so satisfied, the Rent Controller shall direct the tenant to deliver possession. The bona fide of the landlords, is accepted by this Court in C.R.P.3157/93, which was not disturbed at the time of the remand by the Apex Court. Therefore, once again, reopening the same, a doubt could not be raised, about the bona fide. If the condition of the building is proved to be, of not good and it requires at least immediate repairs, then and there, then, I should accept the case of the landlords, that the building is required for demolition and reconstruction. 20. Therefore, once again, reopening the same, a doubt could not be raised, about the bona fide. If the condition of the building is proved to be, of not good and it requires at least immediate repairs, then and there, then, I should accept the case of the landlords, that the building is required for demolition and reconstruction. 20. In Jagat Pal Dhawan v. Kahan Singh ( 2003 (1) SCC 191 ), it is held, while a claim is made for demolition and reconstruction, the bona fide of the landlord has to be decided, on the basis of the age and condition of the building, availability of necessary funds and whether building plans have been sanctioned by local authority. In this case, as spoken by P.W.1, originally approval was granted and it seems thereafter, on the objection raised by the tenant, while an attempt was made for renewal, it was rejected. We are concerned about the preparation made by the landlords, before the filing of the petition or at the time of the filing of the petition. When the matter is pending for 17 years, we cannot expect, the landlord to have it renewed, by paying the fees unnecessarily. On the basis of the objection raised by the tenant, if the subsequent renewal of the approval is rejected, that will not cause any abrasion, over the bona fide claimed, which was already established. It is also held by this Court in M/s. Mohammed & Sons v. Abbasbhai Jodhpurwala ( 2000 (1) MLJ 747 ), that for the purpose of seeking demolition and reconstruction, the building need not be dangerous or unfit for human habitation nor it should be on the verge of collapse, placing reliance upon Vijay Singh's case. 21. The learned counsel for the tenant submitted that, the landlords have failed to prove that the condition of the building is dangerous and in this view it should be construed, that his requirement is not bona fide. I am unable to subscribe my view to the above said contention, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as at present the law is not so stringent, to have an eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, that the building should be in a dangerous or dilapidated condition, so as to say unfit for occupation. I am unable to subscribe my view to the above said contention, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as at present the law is not so stringent, to have an eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, that the building should be in a dangerous or dilapidated condition, so as to say unfit for occupation. The evidence available on record makes it abundantly clear that the building is not in a sound condition, whereas it is maintained so, as if it is fit for occupation. That does not mean the building is not required for demolition and reconstruction. 22. The very purpose of the remand by the Hon'ble Apex Court is, to let in rebuttal evidence, regarding the condition of the building, which was observed by the Commissioner, as seen from Ex.P.18. The subject matter of Ex.P.18 is the petition mentioned property and the said suit was between the same parties. As submitted before me, no objection to the Commissioner's Report was filed. Even after the remand, nil evidence is let in, to rebut the evidence available in Ex.P.18, so as to say that the Commissioner has observed something, which is not available in the building. The subsequent documents filed, after the remand, would indicate that after making necessary repairs, the tenant had obtained fitness certificate, for running the school in the building, wherein it is casually observed that the building is fit for occupation. None of the documents produced on behalf of the tenant, would establish that the building is not old one, or it is in a sound state, not warranting even a small repair. Even if the old building is periodically repaired, at the cost of the tenant, then it could be in a condition for occupation. That does not mean, it is in a good condition, not requiring for demolition and reconstruction. 23. The Commissioner had observed in Ex.P.18 about the repairs carried out in the building, more or less major repair, thereby showing, before the building was repaired, it was in a bad shape, that is why there was plastering over the wall. It is further observed, that above the door, there is some crack in the building, thereby indicating its unsoundness. It is also further observed by the Commissioner that the rafters, as well as roofs are all changed. It is further observed, that above the door, there is some crack in the building, thereby indicating its unsoundness. It is also further observed by the Commissioner that the rafters, as well as roofs are all changed. He had noticed the cracks inside and outside the wall, including the damage over the western wall, for which face lift was given. It is the further observation of the Commissioner that there is every possibility of the roof leaking. Only because of the repairs carried out by the tenant, a fitness certificate was issued. The very fact that major repair was carried out by the tenant, would indicate that the building was not in good condition, though it is not dangerous, threatening the inhabitants. Considering this report, the appellate authority originally allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, ordering eviction. After the remand, the appellate authority, instead of considering the case, as the law now stands, went back once again and doubted about the bona fide of the landlords, only on the ground that they have failed to prove that the building is in a dangerous condition, requiring immediate demolition and reconstruction, which is not the law at present, as ruled by the Apex Court. 24. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view the courts below have not properly appreciated the facts in issue and taking a contrary view against law, committed an error, in rejecting the Rent Control application and in this view of the matter, I conclude that the claim of the petitioners, for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and on this ground, they are entitled to succeed. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, setting aside the orders of the courts below, ordering eviction of the tenant, on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, directing the tenant to put in possession of the landlords within three months from today, further ordering to pay the costs throughout.