ORDER: The landlord, who was successful in getting an order of eviction before the Rent Controller, in R.C.O.P.No.202 of 1993, was unable to sustain the same, when it was challenged by the tenant before the appellate authority and the result is this revision petition by the landlord. 2. Neither the fact that the property described in R.C.O.P.No.202 of 1993, bearing door No.169, situated at East Masi Street, Madurai belongs to the revision petitioner nor that the same is in occupation of the respondent/tenant is disputed. The owner of the building thought it fit to demolish the above said building since the same was more than 50 years old, for the purpose of constructing a new building. When the landlord approached the respondent/tenant, he refused to vacate the premises, and therefore, the landlord has moved the Rent Controller, invoking the provisions of Sec.14(i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, pleading bona fide also, which was challenged by the respondent herein on various grounds. 3. The Rent Controller, after recording the evidence, while evaluating the materials, has satisfied himself that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and in fact, the landlord requires the building for the immediate purpose of demolition for the purpose of constructing a new building, thus, allowing the R.C.O.P. ordered the eviction of the respondent/tenant, on 8.11.1995, which was challenged by the tenant before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.153 of 1995. 4. Before the Appellate Authority, in order to show the mala fide or lack of bona fide in the claim of the landlord, the tenant has filed a petition, to receive additional evidence, in I.A.No.45 of 1997 in R.C.A.No.153 of 1995. As recorded by the Appellate Authority, it appears, despite opportunities given to the landlord, to question the averments in the said I.A. or challenge the documents produced along with that I.A., he has not availed the said opportunities by filing any counter. Taking into consideration the fact that the landlord has not filed any counter and also the documents produced, wherein the landlord was a party, the Appellate Authority has allowed those documents to be marked and accordingly, they were exhibited as Exs.R-4 and R-5 in the appeal. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the landlord has not filed any counter and also the documents produced, wherein the landlord was a party, the Appellate Authority has allowed those documents to be marked and accordingly, they were exhibited as Exs.R-4 and R-5 in the appeal. 5. The learned Appellate Authority, while scanning Exs.R-4 and R-5, came to the conclusion that the landlord, having filed a petition for eviction of another tenant in the same building, bearing door No.169. has not pressed that petition, thereby making out a case that it is not possible to demolish and reconstruct the building by evicting this respondent/tenant, the further fact being, both the portions are in the same building bearing door No.169. The documents also disclosed that the landlord had obtained necessary permission to construct a new building at door No.169. Unless the tenant in another portion is evicted, it is not possible to demolish the entire building, was the conclusion of the Appellate Authority. The landlord, having filed a petition for the eviction of the other tenant in the same building, admittedly, has not pressed the said application, thereby allowing that tenant to continue in the premises. This fact brought to surface, to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority, that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord and the present petition aimed only to evict this respondent/tenant, thus finding mala fide, or in other words lack of bona fide, the Appellate Authority had doubted about the demolition and reconstruction, resulting in upsetting the finding of the Rent Controller, by allowing the appeal, as per the judgment dated 24.11.1998, which is under challenge in this revision petition. 6. In this revision petition, the landlord has also filed C.M.P.No.5242 of 2001, seeking permission of the Court to file the copy of the agreement dated 23.9.1996 as additional evidence, invoking O.41, Rule 27, C.P.C., which is opposed by the tenant by filing a detailed counter. 7. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/landlord and Mr.P.Malayandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant. 8. 7. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/landlord and Mr.P.Malayandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the R.C.O.P. filed against another tenant, who was in occupation of another portion of the same building, bearing door No.169, had agreed to vacate the premises on her own and that is why, the petition filed against her was not pressed by the landlord, which was not properly considered by the Appellate Authority. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that by allowing the petition to receive additional evidence, the matter may be remitted back to Appellate Authority, for deciding the case on merits since the Appellate Authority has failed to give any opportunity to the landlord to explain regarding his not pressing of another R.C.O.P. filed against another tenant, who is occupying another portion of the same property, bearing door No.169. 9. In response to the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant would contend that sufficient opportunities were given to the landlord by the Appellate Authority, even to file a counter in the petition to receive additional evidence, which was not utilized even by filing any objection and therefore, the remand sought for on the ground that no opportunity was given by the Appellate Authority, cannot be considered by this revisional Court in pursuance of the further fact that the Appellate Authority has properly considered the documents admitted as additional evidence, in which the landlord himself was a party and reached an unerring conclusion, not warranting any interference by this Court. 10. By going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority, I am unable to say ‘NO’ to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant whereas I am constrained to say ‘NO’ to the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord and the reasons are hereunder: 11. In a case coming under Sec.14(i)(b) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the landlord to prove the age of the building, his financial status to demolish and reconstruct the building, the preparations made to achieve the above objects and the bona fides, viz., the building is required only for the purpose of immediate demolition for the purpose of reconstruction and the petition is not aimed as a lever to evict the tenant from the premises. 12. 12. It is the case of the landlord that the building is aged about more than 50 years, which is not in good condition, requiring demolition for the purpose of constructing a new building. Based upon the materials produced by the landlord, the Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the building is an old one, warranting demolition, the landlord is having sufficient funds and that the landlord has also obtained the plan for the purpose of constructing a new building. Further, based on the Commissioner’s Report, a finding is given by the Rent Controller that there are cracks in the building and it may not be safe to allow the building to remain any more and in this way also it requires demolition. The above said findings of the Rent Controller were not disturbed by the Appellate Authority, as seen from the judgment in R.C.A. On the other hand, only on the basis of lack of bona fide, the R.C.A. was allowed, upsetting the result of the Rent Controller, which cannot be easily brushed aside. In this context, we have to see the pro11/22/2006ceedings initiated by the landlord against both the tenants. 13. It is an admitted position, in door No.169, there are two tenants, one is this respondent, by name Chandrasekaran, and another tenant by name Saraswathi. The landlord, having conceived an idea to demolish the building, for the purpose of constructing, a new building, has filed R.C.O.P.No.86 of 1990 against the said Saraswathi and R.C.O.P.No.202 of 1993 against the respondent herein before the same Rent Controller, for eviction. If really the landlord had the idea of demolishing the building with true intention, as he says bona fide, he ought to have insisted the Rent Controller for the joint trial of both the cases, since unless both the petitions are allowed, he cannot demolish the building. In case eviction order is passed in one case, refusing eviction in another case, the intention of the landlord, viz., demolition and reconstruction, cannot be carried out, in view of the admitted position that in the same building i.e., bearing door No.169, both the tenants are residing. In fact, for the site, where the entire building viz., door No.169, is situated, the landlord got approval of the plan from the concerned authority for the construction of the building. In fact, for the site, where the entire building viz., door No.169, is situated, the landlord got approval of the plan from the concerned authority for the construction of the building. Therefore, it is an admitted position, that unless the tenants in both the portions are vacated, the landlord cannot demolish the building, for the purpose of constructing a new building. In this view, the landlord ought to have insisted the Rent Controller concerned to have both the cases tried jointly, inviting common order, thereby avoiding conflicting decision also, which he failed, for the reasons best known to him. In fact, the petition filed prior to the present R.C.O.P. No.202 of 1993 i.e., R.C.O.P.No.86 of 1990 was not taken for trial and the reasons are not known. 14. The present R.C.O.P.No.202 of 1993 alone was tried and an eviction order was passed, nothing wrong. If the claim of the landlord was bona fide, as rightly held by the Appellate Authority, he ought to have prosecuted R.C.O.P.No.86 of 1990 and obtained an order of eviction against the said Saraswathi. Admittedly, as disclosed by Exs.R-4 and R-5, the said R.C.O.P.No.86 of 1990 was dismissed as not pressed, thereby allowing the tenant therein viz., Saraswathi to remain in possession of a portion of the building, bearing door No.169. 15. It was not the case of the landlord, either before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority, that the other tenant viz., Saraswathi had vacated the premises and therefore he has not prosecuted R.C.O.P.No.86 of 1990, when this R.C.O.P. was taken for trial or later on and he has not pressed the said application in view of the fact that he obtained possession of the same. 16. Before this Court an attempt is made to file a document labelled as ‘lease agreement’ said to have been entered into between the revision petitioner and the said Saraswathi dated 23.9.1996, only a Xerox copy is filed here, not even the original filed. 17. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that under the said agreement, the other tenant viz., Saraswathi has agreed to vacate the premises and therefore the petition filed against her in R.C.O.P.No.86 of 1990 was dismissed as not pressed. 17. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that under the said agreement, the other tenant viz., Saraswathi has agreed to vacate the premises and therefore the petition filed against her in R.C.O.P.No.86 of 1990 was dismissed as not pressed. By going through the Xerox copy of the said document available, it is known that a new agreement has been entered on and from 1.9.1996 fixing the rent at Rs.900 p.m. providing a clause ‘when the landlord begins to demolish the building, the tenant has to vacate the premises’, thereby showing that no vacant possession was given to the landlord. If really, as per the agreement reached between the landlord and the said Saraswathi, previous R.C.O.P. was not pressed, then the endorsement must be like that, which is not the case as seen from Exs.R-4 and R-5. This being the position, it is too late now to contend for the revision petitioner that because of the agreement entered into between the landlord and the other tenant, the previous petition was not pressed, which should not have any bearing upon the bona fide, to decide the present R.C.O.P.No.202 of 1993. 18. By going through the order passed by the Rent Controller, as per the endorsement made, I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. If really, the agreement, now said to be entered into between the landlord and another tenant, is true, the revision petitioner ought to have filed a counter before the Appellate Authority, when the respondent/tenant attempted to file the documents as additional evidence and he also ought to have filed a petition for reception of additional evidence, producing the agreement now sought to be filed, which procedures were not followed. 19. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that either the Appellate Authority or the Rent Controller has refused to admit the document, now sought to be filed. It is also not the case of the revision petitioner that despite due diligence, he was unable to secure the document for being produced before the Courts below as additional evidence. This being the position, invoking O.41, Rule 27, C.P.C., also, it is not possible to admit the document filed along with C.M.P.No.5242 of 2001, hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 20. This being the position, invoking O.41, Rule 27, C.P.C., also, it is not possible to admit the document filed along with C.M.P.No.5242 of 2001, hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 20. In view of the admitted position that the landlord has allowed the other tenant to remain in occupation of a portion of the same building, which is sought to be demolished, as rightly held by the Appellate Authority, there is no bona fide in the claim of the landlord/revision petitioner and in this view, regarding the conclusion reached by the Appellate Authority that the building is not required by the landlord bona fide for the immediate purpose of demolition, I do not find any reason to interfere with, since the same is based on unquestionable documents, wherein the landlord was a party. 21. For the foregoing reasons, both the revision petition and the C.M.P. are devoid of merits and they are liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, both the revision petition and the C.M.P.No.5242 of 2001 are dismissed. No costs.