Judgment :- Common Order: Challenging concurrent findings and Eviction Order passed by Rent Control Authorities, Tenants have preferred these Civil Revision Petitions. 2. 1. These Revisions arise on the following facts:- Demised premises is Door No.11, Krishnan Koil Street, also known as No.11, Rotters Lane, George Town, Chennai. The same was purchased by Landlords / Respondents from M/s. Appavoo Chettiar and Dhanalakshmi Ammal by a Registered Sale Deed on 111. 1995. Respondents issued Ex.P.5 – Notice (dated 111. 1996) calling upon Tenant to vacate the premises as he failed to pay the rent from November 1995 onwards and the said Notice was returned unserved. Vendor – Appavoo Chettiar also issued Ex.P.9 – Letter informing about the Sale Deed and calling upon Tenant to attorn tenany in favour of Respondents. But, the Tenant has committed default in payment of rent. Respondents have filed R.C.O.P.No.2793 of 1996 for eviction on the ground of Demolition and Reconstruction and R.C.O.P.No.987 of 1997 for eviction on the ground of Wilful Default in payment of rent from November 1995 to April 1997. 2. 2. Tenant resisted Eviction Petition contending that Appavoo Chettiar assured to sell petition property to him, but clandestinely sold to the Respondents. According to the Tenant, the said Appavoo Chettiar was collecting rent even after alleged sale in favour of Respondents. It was the further case of Tenant that he had paid a sum of Rs.23,000/-as rental advance to Appavoo Chettiar and even if there is any rental arrears, it can be well adjusted from the same. Regarding the Eviction Petition on the ground of Demolition and Reconstruction, Tenant had resisted the Petition contending that there is no bonafide requirement. 3. The Rent Controller held that there was no proof regarding payment of Rs.23,000/-as rental advance and there was arrears of rent even after filing of rent control proceedings and ordered eviction. Finding that building is aged 75 years and the condition of the same is dilapidated, eviction was also ordered on the ground of Demolition and Reconstruction. .4. Aggrieved by order of eviction, Tenant has preferred Appeals. During pendency of Appeals, Tenant passed away and Revision Petitioners were impleaded as Legal Representatives of the Tenant. Finding that the Tenant has not paid the rent from March 1995, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. .4. Aggrieved by order of eviction, Tenant has preferred Appeals. During pendency of Appeals, Tenant passed away and Revision Petitioners were impleaded as Legal Representatives of the Tenant. Finding that the Tenant has not paid the rent from March 1995, the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. Pointing out the inconsistent version regarding the payment of arrears, Appellate Authority negatived the contention of payment of rental advance of Rs.23,000/-. Order of eviction on the ground of Demolition and Reconstruction was also confirmed. 3. Challenging the concurrent findings, learned counsel for Revision Petitioners contended that Courts below have failed to note non-examination of Appavoo Chettiar regarding payment of advance. It was further submitted that when there was no notice with regard to intimation of attornment of tenancy, the Petitioners have been kept at dark with regard to sale transaction between Appavoo Chettiar and Respondents and the Petitioners cannot be held to have committed Wilful Default. On the ground of Demolition and Reconstruction, it was contended that condition of the building is good, which does not require demolition. 4. Drawing attention of Court to various documents, learned counsel for Respondents has submitted that Courts below have recorded concurrent findings regarding Wilful Default and the same cannot be interfered with. It was further submitted that the building is very old and aged more than 75 years and the walls have developed cracks and the building might collapse at any moment, which is dangerous. It was further submitted that Respondents have obtained Sanctioned Plan for Demolition and Reconstruction and they have also proved their sufficient means to construct a new building and on being satisfied of bonafide requirement, Courts below ordered eviction on the ground of Demolition and Reconstruction. 5. Wilful Default:- Main contention of Petitioners is that Tenant has paid a huge sum of Rs.23,000/- as rental advance, for which reliance was placed on Ex.R.3 – Endorsement. In Ex.P.2 – notice issued by Tenant – Mohamed Razack, the quantum of rental advance was stated as Rs.24,500/-. The Tenant has also filed O.S.No.7986 of 1995 for Permanent Injunction against Appavoo Chettiar and in the Affidavit filed by him seeking ad-interim injunction, quantum of rental advance is pleaded as Rs.24,500/-. The Tenant has given a different version in respect of quantum of rental advance as Rs.23,000/-and Rs.24,500/-. The Tenant has also filed O.S.No.7986 of 1995 for Permanent Injunction against Appavoo Chettiar and in the Affidavit filed by him seeking ad-interim injunction, quantum of rental advance is pleaded as Rs.24,500/-. The Tenant has given a different version in respect of quantum of rental advance as Rs.23,000/-and Rs.24,500/-. Pointing out inconsistency in quantum of rental advance paid, Courts below disbelieved the plea of payment of rental advance of Rs.23,000/-. .6. After the demised premises was sold to Respondents by the Sale Deed dated 111. 1995, rent was not paid to the Respondents. Only after filing of Eviction Petition on the ground of Wilful Default, the Tenant has paid a sum of Rs.6,800/- towards eight months rental arrears on 05.08.1997 (Ex.P.11). Even after filing of Eviction Petition, Tenant was irregular in payment of rent. Courts below arrived at conclusion that the Tenant has deliberately accumulated the rent and was irregular in payment of rent. The Tenant resisted the Petition contending that erstwhile Landlord Appavoo Chettiar assured to sell the petition property to him, but sold the same to the Respondents clandestinely. In the absence of any Agreement of Sale or any other proof, the contention of the Tenant that Appavoo Chettiar agreed to sell the property to him was rightly negatived by the Courts below. The Tenant, who was unsuccessful in purchasing the property deliberately withheld rent for several months. Even after issuance of Notice, both by Respondents and by the erstwhile Landlord -Appavoo Chettiar, the Tenant had not chosen to attorn the Tenancy nor paid the rent. Taking note of the conduct of the Tenant, Courts below recorded concurrent finding that the Tenant has committed Wilful Default and the same cannot be interfered with. 7. Demolition and Reconstruction:-According to Respondents, Building is very old and its condition is very bad and dilapidated and likely to fall down at any moment. Under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act, order for eviction may be made if the Controller is satisfied that the building is bonafidely required by the Landlord for immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolishing is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. The basic stipulation for passing an order of eviction is satisfaction of bonafide requirement. The bonafide requirement can be established by several ways. In Vijay Singh Vs. The basic stipulation for passing an order of eviction is satisfaction of bonafide requirement. The bonafide requirement can be established by several ways. In Vijay Singh Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (1996 (2) C.T.C. 586), Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines as to what are the relevant materials to be taken into account to find out whether requirement of the landlord is bonafide or not :- .(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. Supreme Court has further held that these are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act. 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. 8. It is the settled position of law that in order to seek eviction of the Tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, it is not necessary that the building should be in dangerous and dilapidated condition, requiring immediate demolition, though it is necessary to find out the condition of the building. In a number of decisions, it has been held that condition of the building is not so essential and even if the building may not be much dangerous, if it is shown that the building is bonafide required by the landlord for immediate purpose of demolition, eviction could be ordered. {Vide Kuttappan (died) Vs. Civil Advocates Clerks Association ( 1997 (2) C.T.C. 41 ); Saraswathiammal (dcd) and two others Vs. Mallikarjun Raja and 2 others ( 1997 (1) C.T.C. 280 ; M/s. Mohammed and Sons Vs. Abbadhai Jodhpurwala ( 2000 (1) M.L.J. 747 ); Habibullah Vs. Mohamed Sultan ( 2004 (2) C.T.C. 270 ); and Sherwood Educational Society Vs. Abid Namazie and others (1997 I L.W. 323)}. 9. In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court and other decisions, it is not necessary for the Landlords to prove the condition of the building is such that it is dilapidated and dangerous and has to be demolished immediately. Abid Namazie and others (1997 I L.W. 323)}. 9. In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court and other decisions, it is not necessary for the Landlords to prove the condition of the building is such that it is dilapidated and dangerous and has to be demolished immediately. But, even otherwise, as a question of fact, in this case, there is ample evidence that the building is aged and the condition of the building is not sound. Though the condition of the building need not be so dilapidated, in this case, the age of the building is clearly mentioned as 65 years in Ex.P.1 – Sale Deed (dated 111. 1995). Title Deeds in favour of erstwhile Owners (Ex.P.3) would go to show that the petition building has been in existence even in the year 1920 itself. From Ex.P.1 and P.13 series, it is seen that the Building is fairly an old building. 10. Respondents Engineer was examined as P.W.2. In his Report – Ex.P.14, P.W.2 has noted that there are cracks in many places of the building and that there is a long major crack in the Western side wall of the premises, which P.W.2 has opined that dangerous to the building. P.W.2 has opined that the cracks in the walls and bend in the roof cannot be repaired and rectified and the whole structure has to be demolished at the earliest as it is unsafe for human habitation. Regarding age and condition of the building, evidence of P.W.2 and his Report – Ex.P.14 is unassailable. 11. The Respondents have also produced Ex.P.8 – Sanctioned Plan for Demolition of existing building and the Licence granted by Corporation for demolition of the old building along with receipts for payment of demolition charges, licence charges and other charges (as is seen from Ex.P.9 series). Referring to Exs.P.8 and P.9 series, Courts below have held that requirement of the building for Demolition and Reconstruction is bonafide. First Respondent is carrying on business in Turmeric and Kumkum and they are owners of another three grounds of land. Respondents have also produced Ex.P.11 series – Bank Fixed Deposits Receipts showing that they have cash deposit of Rs.1,95,000/-. The Rent Control Authorities have recorded concurrent finding that the Respondents have established their sufficient financial sources to demolish and put up new structure. 12. Respondents have also produced Ex.P.11 series – Bank Fixed Deposits Receipts showing that they have cash deposit of Rs.1,95,000/-. The Rent Control Authorities have recorded concurrent finding that the Respondents have established their sufficient financial sources to demolish and put up new structure. 12. 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 Respondents/Landlords have also satisfied that they are 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. 13. Under Section 25 of the Act, it is not permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its revisional 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 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...." 14. Unless there is perversity in the manner of appreciation of evidence by the Authorities below, exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, the Revisional Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings. There is absolutely nothing to show that there is perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the Impugned Order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) dated 011. 2006 in R.C.A.Nos.436 and 437 of 2000 is confirmed and these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1+1 of 2007 are closed. Three months time from the date of this order is granted for vacating and handing over vacant possession.