Judgment :- Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authorities ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction (under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act), the Tenants have preferred these Revision Petitions. 2. Since both Revision Petitions arise out of common order and same set of facts are relevant for both the Revision Petitions, both Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The demised premises relates to the entire building in Door No.137 (Old No.403) Mint Street, Chennai. The portions in the building were let out to three tenants – Central Glass Traders and the Revision Petitioners. The other Tenant – Central Glass Traders, who filed R.C.A.No.33 of 2003 against the order in R.C.O.P.No.625 of 1998 has vacated and withdrew the said R.C.A.No.33 of 2003. 4. The Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.627 of 1998 (C.R.P.No.2669 of 2004) has become Tenant under the Respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.225/- for running textile business. The Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.628 of 1998 (C.R.P.No.61 of 2005) has become Tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- and running the business under the name and style of "Yuvak Business". The Respondent/Landlord sought eviction on the ground that the building is aged 90 years old and First and Second Floors and substantial portion in the ground floor behind the shop let out to the Tenants have collapsed and fallen down and the building has lost lateral support. The Respondent sent Notice dated 011. 1997 informing the Tenants about the bad condition of the building and calling upon them to vacate. Since the Tenants have not chosen to send any reply, the Landlord has filed eviction petitions on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The Respondent/Landlord has sufficient means and resources to put up construction. After reconstruction, the Respondent/Landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation. 5. The Tenants resisted the eviction petitions contending as follows:- The front side shops are structurally sound and the building is in good condition and does not require demolition and reconstruction. The backside portion was partly demolished even before eviction proceedings were initiated in 1998 and even after demolition in the backside, the Landlord has not commenced any reconstruction activities. 5. The Tenants resisted the eviction petitions contending as follows:- The front side shops are structurally sound and the building is in good condition and does not require demolition and reconstruction. The backside portion was partly demolished even before eviction proceedings were initiated in 1998 and even after demolition in the backside, the Landlord has not commenced any reconstruction activities. The Respondent/Landlord has offered property for sale and the main object of the Respondent is only to sell the property for a fancy price by demolishing the structure and the Landlord has no idea of putting up any new construction and therefore, the alleged requirement of the building is not bonafide. 6. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Referring to Exs.C.1 and C.3 and other evidence, learned Rent Controller found that the age of the building is more than 75 years and the building is old and in dilapidated condition. Referring to obtaining of Building Plan and Licence for putting up construction, bonafide requirement of the Landlord was upheld. Referring to the Fixed Deposits and Bank Balance (Exs.P.9 to P.19) and Loan Sanction Letter – Ex.P.20, learned Rent Controller found that the Landlord has sufficient means to construct the building. Satisfied with the bonafide requirement, eviction was ordered on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Concurring with the findings that the Building is old and in dangerous condition, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Revision Petitioners. 7. Assailing the concurrent findings of the authorities below, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner Mr. R. Thiyagarajan (in C.R.P.No.61 of 2005) has contended that the requirement is not bonafide and the age and condition of the building are not substantiated. Submitting that the Respondent/Landlord is a practising Advocate having residential house at T.Nagar, Chennai, it was contended that there was no bonafide requirement. Regarding the building plans and licence fee paid, learned counsel urged that the period of building plan has already expired and no material has been produced showing its renewal. It was also urged that mere deposit of amount in the bank would not be sufficient. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in Vairamani Ammal ..Vs.. Kalyana Sundaram and another ( 2004 (I) M.L.J. 681 ) and Iqbal Abdul Kareem by his Power of Attorney Salaiman Abdul Kareem ..Vs.. Chandrasekaran ( 2005 (4) M.L.J. 569 ). 8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in Vairamani Ammal ..Vs.. Kalyana Sundaram and another ( 2004 (I) M.L.J. 681 ) and Iqbal Abdul Kareem by his Power of Attorney Salaiman Abdul Kareem ..Vs.. Chandrasekaran ( 2005 (4) M.L.J. 569 ). 8. Mr.P.K.Sivasubramaniam, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner (in C.R.P.No.2669 of 2004) has contended that the findings of the Rent Control Authorities are not in accordance with the observation of the Supreme Court in Vijay Singhs case. It was further submitted that under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act") it is mandatory on the Appellate Authority to analyse the evidence independently and in this case, the Appellate Authority has not gone into the aspects of bonafide and hence, the order of eviction cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Singh Etc., ..Vs.. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (1997 I M.L.J. (S.C.) 98). 9. Drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, learned counsel for the Respondent/Landlord has submitted that the age and condition of the building is well proved by overwhelming evidence. Laying stress upon Ex.P.36 and Exs.C.1 to C.4, it was submitted that the demised premises is proved to be in dilapidated condition. To prove his bonafide, the Respondent/Landlord has made preparation for demolition and reconstruction by obtaining Sanction Building Plan by paying necessary licence fee and also contributing amount to Construction Labourers Welfare Fund. Referring to F.D.Rs and Loan Sanction Letter – Ex.P.20, it was submitted that the Landlord has proved his means and resources to put up construction and the courts below on being satisfied with the bonafide requirement rightly ordered eviction. 10. I have carefully examined the records and considered the submissions of the counsels. 11. To maintain a Petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the Landlord should establish the bonafide intention. As held by the Supreme Court in its decision reported in Sabura Begum..Vs.. Thangavelu ( 1997 (I) C.T.C. 95 = 1997 (I) M.L.J. 418 ), the rent controller has to take into account (1) bonafide intention of the landlord. 11. To maintain a Petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the Landlord should establish the bonafide intention. As held by the Supreme Court in its decision reported in Sabura Begum..Vs.. Thangavelu ( 1997 (I) C.T.C. 95 = 1997 (I) M.L.J. 418 ), the rent controller has to take into account (1) bonafide intention of the landlord. It should not be solely to get rid of the tenant; (2) the age and condition of the building; and (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. 12. Age and condition of the building:- While the age and condition of the buildings are relevant factors to be taken into account, it is not possible to insist that the condition of the building must be such that there is imminent threat of the building collapsing in the near future and only in such contingency, the Landlord could resort to the process under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. It has been held in numerous decisions that the building need not be very old and dilapidated. Some of the decisions of this Court on this point are:- Lakshmanan and Others ..Vs.. Kanniammal alias Pattammal (1995 II M.L.J. 178), Sultan Sheriff alias Basha ..Vs.. Hassan Mohideen and others ( 1984 (97) L.W. 166 ), Narayanaswami Iyer ..Vs.. Ramakrishna Iyer ( 1965 (I) M.L.J. 78 ), Daniel Parthasarathy ..Vs.. Manickavasagam (1965 (78) L.W. 24), Bharath Trading Co., ..Vs.. Shanmugasundaram ( 1982 (I) M.L.J. 94 ) and Ammal Pillai and others ..Vs.. M/s.Varadarajulu Complex Etc., ( 1997 (1) L.W. 364 ). 13. Section 14(1)(b) of the Act was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in P.Orr and Sons (P) Ltd., ..Vs.. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited ( 1991 (1) S.C.C. 301 ). The Supreme Court has observed that the Landlord could succeed in an application under Section 14(1)(b) only when it is established that the building is in dilapidated condition, which require immediate demolition. View in the said case was diluted by a subsequent Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh and others ..Vs.. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (1996 (2) C.T.C. 586 = 1996 (6) S.C.C. 475 ), in which the Supreme Court has laid down the law as under:- "..... 10. Permission under Section 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. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (1996 (2) C.T.C. 586 = 1996 (6) S.C.C. 475 ), in which the Supreme Court has laid down the law as under:- "..... 10. Permission under Section 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 section 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) 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; (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 Section 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........" 14. In view of Vijay Singhs case and other decisions of this Court, it is not necessary for the Landlord to prove that the condition of the building is such that it is dilapidated and dangerous and has to be demolished immediately. But, there are facts and ample evidence to show that the condition of the building is not sound. The specific stand of the Landlord is the building is more than 90 years old. But, the Tenants would contend that the building is not so aged and that the building is strong. Ex.P.1 dated 02.03.1925 is the Original Lease Deed executed by the Father of the Landlord in respect of the demised premises in favour of Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund. But, the Tenants would contend that the building is not so aged and that the building is strong. Ex.P.1 dated 02.03.1925 is the Original Lease Deed executed by the Father of the Landlord in respect of the demised premises in favour of Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund. Leasing out the building in 1925 clearly shows that the demised premises was in existence even prior to 1925 i.e. more than 73 years at the time of filing R.C.O.Ps. 15. P.W.3 – Civil Engineer has inspected the building and examined the nature of construction and nature of building materials used, doors, windows and estimated the age of the building at 90 years. The Landlord, who was examined as P.W.1, who is a Senior Citizen has also stated that he has been living in the petition premises from his childhood till he shifted to T.Nagar in 1989. Even the Tenants have admitted that the building is aged more than 50 to 60 years. 16. P.W.1 has deposed that on account of the age of the building and non-maintenance, the building has lost its strength and stability and begun to collapse from August 1995. Informing the Tenants about the dangerous condition of the building, Ex.P.2 – Notice (dated 011. 1997) was sent stating that major portions have already collapsed. The Tenants have not refuted the averments in the Notice. 17. In his evidence, P.W.1 has spoken about the bad condition of the building and about collapse of major portions of the building. During his visit, P.W.4 – Advocate Commissioner has noted cracks in the Walls and has also found gaps between the ceiling and the wooden piece of Madras terrace. The Commissioner has also noticed wooden rafters giving way and the wooden rafters eaten away by white ants. Leakage of rain water and cracks on the wall were also noticed. The Commissioner had also noticed cracks in the roof extending upto the main door. 18. P.W.3 – Engineer has also inspected the building and submitted his Report – Ex.P.36. He has also taken photographs, which have been marked as Ex.P.21 to P.34. P.W.3 – Engineer has also spoken about the damaged condition of the Madras Terrace, White ants, marks of leakage, cracks on the Wall and a total collapse of the Eastern portion. P.W.3 has also noticed that Casuarina were erected to support the ceiling over the passage abutting the roofs. P.W.3 – Engineer has also spoken about the damaged condition of the Madras Terrace, White ants, marks of leakage, cracks on the Wall and a total collapse of the Eastern portion. P.W.3 has also noticed that Casuarina were erected to support the ceiling over the passage abutting the roofs. P.W.3 has opined that the building is structurally unsound, dilapidated, dangerous and beyond repairs. 19. From the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4, the dilapidated condition of the building is established. All of them have consistently spoken about the collapse of the rear portion. According to the Tenants, the rear portion was partly demolished by the Landlord himself to show that as if the building is in dilapidated condition. It was contended that though the rear portion was demolished, the Landlord had not undertaken any reconstruction activities, which only shows the Landlords intention and proposal to sell the property. According to the Tenants, the Landlords Brother – Krishnamurthy while demolishing his adjacent building, the First and Second Floor of the demised premises and the rear portion got damaged. Per contra, the Tenant – Parasmal has stated that the Landlord himself has demolished the rear portion. Pointing out the inconsistent plea taken by the Tenants, learned Rent Controller has negatived the version of the Tenants. The stand of the Tenants that the building is in good condition is not substantiated. 20. On the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4 and Exs.C.1 to C.4 and Ex.P.36 and Photographs, the courts below have recorded concurrent findings regarding the age and condition of the building. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. 21. Bonafide Requirement:- The other factor to be proved by the Landlord is that his requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction is bonafide. The term "bonafide" includes the means of the Landlord for reconstruction of the building and steps taken in this regard. The Landlord has obtained Sanction for Building Plan (Ex.P.7) for demolition and reconstruction from the authorities. Ex.P.5 is the Challan for payment of Rs.49,285/-towards fees for demolition and reconstruction. Ex.P.6 document would show issuance of D.D. for Rs.2,880/- towards payment for Tamil Nadu Construction Labourers Welfare Fund. The Respondent/Landlord has also obtained estimate for cost of construction (Ex.P.8). 22. The Landlord has obtained Sanction for Building Plan (Ex.P.7) for demolition and reconstruction from the authorities. Ex.P.5 is the Challan for payment of Rs.49,285/-towards fees for demolition and reconstruction. Ex.P.6 document would show issuance of D.D. for Rs.2,880/- towards payment for Tamil Nadu Construction Labourers Welfare Fund. The Respondent/Landlord has also obtained estimate for cost of construction (Ex.P.8). 22. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.R.Thiyagarajan has submitted that Ex.P.7 – Sanction Plan would be valid only for a limited period and no evidence was adduced showing renewal and in the absence of any evidence showing renewal, lack of bonafide requirement is to be inferred. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision reported in R. Parvathi and others ..Vs.. Kaliyaperumal (2004 (3) M.L. J. 111). In the said case, approval plan was not filed nor sanction was also obtained. In that context, S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN, J., has observed that mere intention is not sufficient and requirement lacks bonafide. 23. In another decision reported in Narayanan ..Vs.. Chandrasekaran (2005 (3) C.T.C. 693), S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN, J., has observed that non-production of licence and plan would not disentitle the Landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction when the requirement of the Landlord found to be bonafide. When the requirement of the Landlord is bonafide, the production of plan and licence is not a condition precedent. Nowhere in the Act, it is stated that a Petition can be filed only after getting the Sanction from the Authorities for proposed demolition and reconstruction. 24. Though the licence might have lapsed, periodical renewal of the licence is not necessary to sustain the bonafide. Holding that the Court may not insist that approval plan be renewed every year, in the decision reported in Ammal Pillai and Others ..Vs.. M/s. Varadarjulu Complex (1997 I L.W. 364) S.S.SUBRAMANI, J. has held, ".... By merely filing a licence, the landlords cannot put up the construction. Authorities are also made known at that time that there is a building, and that has to be demolished, and it is in the occupation of the tenant. Court can take judicial notice of pendency of Rent Control Proceedings. Every year the licence will have to be renewed, and longer the pendency of the proceedings, number of times the renewal will have to be made. Court can take judicial notice of pendency of Rent Control Proceedings. Every year the licence will have to be renewed, and longer the pendency of the proceedings, number of times the renewal will have to be made. By the time eviction is ordered, even the Rules for granting the licence would have changed, or there may be many changes even in the locality itself, by acquisition or taking away of the property by erosion etc. By merely filing a Plan at the time of filing of petition, no body can be sure that on the basis of that plan, the landlord is going to put up construction therein. It is only for the purpose of proving the bonafides, and to show his readiness to put up the construction, a Plan will have to be filed. By the action of the tenant, the landlord is not in a position to get possession, and he has to allow the licence to lapse. The Court may not insist that every year the landlord should get it renewed. After the eviction petition is filed, if the landlord is not taking steps for immediate demolition and reconstruction, the Act provides the legal consequences...." .25. Means of the Landlord:- .Means of the Landlord to put up construction is one of the relevant factor to test the bonafide. The Landlord has obtained the Estimate (Ex.P.8) and the cost of construction is estimated at Rs.9,47,703/-. To establish his means and resources, the Landlord has produced Exs.P.9 to P.19 – Fixed Deposits and Ex.P.20 – Loan Sanction Letter for Rs.5,00,000/-. Exs.P.9 to P.20 clearly establish that the Respondent has ready cash of nearly Rs.7,00,000/- and is in a position to mobilise finance to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. 26. Laying scathing attack on the bonafide requirement, learned counsel Mr.R.Thiyagarajan has contended that the Landlord has not proved whether the Fixed Deposits are still subsisting and whether the Respondent continued to have the means to put up construction. As noted earlier, the Respondent / Landlord - a Senior Citizen, is a practising Advocate, said to be having good practice and is in a position to mobilise the funds. It is not the requirement of law that the Respondent / Landlord should jingle the coins before the Court. When the Landlord has produced Fixed Deposits in his name, the Court cannot be obstinate in doubting the financial capacity of the Landlord. .27. It is not the requirement of law that the Respondent / Landlord should jingle the coins before the Court. When the Landlord has produced Fixed Deposits in his name, the Court cannot be obstinate in doubting the financial capacity of the Landlord. .27. In the decision reported in Akbar Ali and Four Others ..Vs.. Donian Rodrigo and another (2000 I C.T.C.287), it was held that the landlord need not produce currencies before the Court to prove his means. On fact, it was clearly established that the landlords were not indebted to any person and that he was possessed of sufficient means. 28. In the decision reported in Ispahani S.M. And another ..Vs.. Harrington House School, represented by its Hon.Secretary (2000 I C.T.C. 634), it was held that the Landlord need not jingle the coins. Location of the property and also extensive properties owned by landlord is sufficient to establish means. The Landlord has also established his means by producing wealth tax assessments and other documents. Age and condition of the building was established by admission of tenant in earlier fair rent proceedings. The requirement of landlord is bonafide. 29. The Courts have held that it is not necessary that the Landlords alone would invest the amount. Facilities from financial institutions can be availed of or from other persons. Holding that raising of funds for erecting a structure in commercial centre is not at all difficult, in the decision reported in Venugopal ..Vs.. Karruppusami and another (2006 (3) M.L.J 29), the Supreme Court observed thus: "....In the instant case, we find that the property owned by the landlord, whatever may have been its value in the past, has acquired commercial value and, therefore, the landlord wishes to demolish the old single storey structure and to construct a multi – storeyed building which may fetch him higher rent, apart from serving his own needs. The landlord had already applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved. Taking into consideration all these reasons, we are convinced that the landlord bona fide intends to demolish the old building and to construct a new one. Raising funds for erecting a structure in a commercial centre is not at all difficult when a large number of builders, financiers as well as banks are willing to advance funds to erect new structures in commercial areas. Raising funds for erecting a structure in a commercial centre is not at all difficult when a large number of builders, financiers as well as banks are willing to advance funds to erect new structures in commercial areas. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was willing to invest a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs........" 30. In the instant case, it is quite obvious that the premises is located in Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai, which is a busy commercial locality in the city. Hence, it would not be difficult for the Landlady to raise funds either from financiers as well as from Banks, who willing to advance funds to erect new structure in such commercial areas. 31. Mr.P.K.Sivasubramaniam, learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority has not independently analysed the evidence to satisfy itself as to the bonafide requirement. Contending that the Appellate Authority failed to dispose of the Appeal in appreciation of evidence, learned counsel for the Tenants prayed for setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. In support of their contentions, reliance was placed upon the decision reported in K.Periyanayagam ..Vs.. J.K.Savithri and 9 others ( 2004 (4) L.W. 768 ). In the said case, the Appellate Authority has passed order without discussing facts and it merely endorsed the decision of the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, learned Judge has held that such sort of mere endorsement, in the name of finding without assigning any reasons therefor and without discussing the facts and legal positions with the decision of the Trial Court, should not be allowed and that is not so in this case. 32. I have carefully gone through the order of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has generally addressed itself to the evidence and discussed the condition of the building. Regarding the means and bonafide requirement, the Appellate Authority has referred to the evidence in brief. There is no force in the contention that there was no application of mind by the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority merely endorsed the finding of the Rent Controller. 33. In the decision reported in Amaiyappa Transport ..Vs.. Regarding the means and bonafide requirement, the Appellate Authority has referred to the evidence in brief. There is no force in the contention that there was no application of mind by the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority merely endorsed the finding of the Rent Controller. 33. In the decision reported in Amaiyappa Transport ..Vs.. N.S.Rajulu (2002 (4) C.T.C. 123 = 2002 (9) S.C.C. 437 ), the building was about 80 years old when the proceedings for eviction commenced and by the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, 20 years had elapsed. The Supreme Court found that there was nothing wrong if the landlord proposed to demolish such a building to augment his earning and there is nothing to suspect the bonafides of the landlord. The Supreme Court observed, "...There is nothing to assume that the need for demolition and reconstruction... is unnatural or lacking in sincerity. There is no material on record to hold that the Landlord was merely attempting to find out a pretext or ruse to get rid of the tenants." The above observation squarely applies to the case on hand. 34. Sufficient evidence on record is available as to the age and condition of the building which show that the age and condition of the building is such that it requires demolition and reconstruction. The Respondent/Landlord has also satisfied that he is having sufficient means or can raise loans to undertake the work of demolition and reconstruction. In consideration of the materials adduced, the Authorities below have recorded concurrent findings that there is bonafide requirement. 35. Under Section 25 of the Act, it is not permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction to act as Appellate Court to re-appraise or re-assess the evidence afresh as an Appellate Court and come to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Court below. In K.M. Abdul Razzack ..Vs.. Damodharan (2001 (1) M.L.J. (S.C.) 37 = 2000 (4) SUPREME 575 ) in Para 5, it was held as follows:- "5....It is not permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction to act as an Appellate Court to reappraise or reassess the evidence afresh as an appellate Court as an appellate Court and come to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Court below. We, therefore, hold that the High Court while allowing the revision transgressed its jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 25 of the Act...." 36. In the decision reported in P.S.Pareed Kaka and others ..Vs.. Shafee Ahmed Saheb ( 2004 (5) S.C.C. 241 ) the Supreme Court has held that the High Court has jurisdiction to go into the legality or correctness of the decision, which includes the power to appreciate evidence and that the High Court can interfere with the finding of fact also. The examination as to the correctness involves appreciation of evidence and that the High Court can interfere with the finding of the Rent Controller is entirely improbable. In the present case, I do not find any such improbability in the orders of the Courts below. There is nothing to show that the reasonings are perverse calling for interference. 37. In the result, the Judgment dated 011. 2004 of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.A.Nos.78 of 2003 and 96 of 2003, (arising out of R.C.O.P.Nos.627 of 1998 and 628 of 1998 on the file of XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) is confirmed and these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.Nos.20525 of 2004 and 1368 of 2005 are also dismissed. And Mr.P.K.Sivasubramaniam have requested the Court for grant of time for vacating and handing over vacant possession. Upon hearing both sides, Nine months from the date of this order is granted to the Revision Petitioners/Tenants for vacating and handing over vacant possession to the Respondent/Landlord on condition that the Tenants should file an Affidavit of Undertaking, within a period of one week from the date of this order.