Judgment : This Revision has been filed against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chengalpattu in R.C.A. No.16 of 2004 dated 29. 2007 confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Tambaram made in R.C.O.P.No.122 of 1996 dated 24. 2004. 2. Therevision petitioner herein is tenant under the respondent/landlord, who suffered eviction order at the hands of the Rent Controller which was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. 3. Thecase of the respondent/landlord the petitioner before the Rent Controller, would run as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner of the entire premises in Door No.2 Muthulinga Reddy Street, Tambaram, situated in S.Nos.325/1A/1A2/1B and 324. The premises are called ‘Santhanalakshmi Block’. There are 17 portions in the said building and were let out for several tenants on the basis of monthly tenancy. The respondent is one of the tenants occupying a portion of the building in the above said address. The tenancy is according to English Calender month and ending with the last day of every English Calender month. The premises was let out for the purpose of nonresidential use i.e. to run grocery shop. The present monthly rent is Rs.75/- p.m. The tenancy is oral. The electricity charges has to be paid by the tenant/Respondent separately who is having the white meter card in the name of landlord. The rental receipts were issued duly for every payment of monthly rent. The building was more than 40 years old and became dilapidated. The income derived from the said building is very low as the cost of living and prices are escalating. Hence the petitioner expressed her desire to demolish the entire building in Door. No.2, Santhanalakshmi Block, Muthulinga Reddy Street. Tambaram West and to put up a new building for a Restaurant to increase and augment the income. Petitioner/Landlord wrote a letter to all the tenants on 2. 1993 expressing her desire and intentions to construct a new building. Almost 75% of the tenants excepting five tenants vacated the premises accepting the genuine demands of the petitioners. The respondent is one of the five tenants who is giving trouble to the petitioner who has not vacated and hence this petition is filed for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act 1960. The petitioner is having sufficient funds to construct the new building immediately after the tenants are vacated. The respondent is one of the five tenants who is giving trouble to the petitioner who has not vacated and hence this petition is filed for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act 1960. The petitioner is having sufficient funds to construct the new building immediately after the tenants are vacated. She is having money in her bank account and in cash. Further, she is also an income tax assessee submitting her returns duly to the authorities concerned, will reveal that she is capable of putting new construction. She undertakes to demolish the entire building immediately within one month from the date, the petitioner recovers possession of the entire building. The claim of the petitioner is genuine and bona fide. She also sent a legal notice to the respondent on 23. 1995 and the respondent sent a reply notice dated 24. 1995 with all fake allegations. She (sic) has also obtained necessary planning permission from the Municipal authorities to demolish the old building and to put up a new building. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner/landlord for evicting the respondent/tenant from the premises. 4. Thecase of the revision petitioner/tenant as respondent before the Learned Rent Controller as stated in the statement of objections and the additional statement of objections, would be thus: The respondent is the tenant. The petitioner used to issue receipts only for the amount mentioned, the correct rent is huge and he reserved his right to file the additional statements after obtaining necessary charge from their own amount. The rental receipts issued only for the purpose of the petitioner’s convenient and not for the actual amount paid by this respondent. The intention of the petitioner for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is not at all maintainable in law and facts. The petitioner has not come forward with clean hands to show her bona fide requirement. The alleged permission obtained by the petitioner from Municipal Authorities for demolition and to put up new construction is denied the tenant. The proposed building cannot be put up by the petitioner as there is no proper approval from the competent authorities. The entire premises consist of both Residential and non-residential and the petitioner is not entitled to demolish the entire building for the purpose of construction of Non-residential alone. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 5. The proposed building cannot be put up by the petitioner as there is no proper approval from the competent authorities. The entire premises consist of both Residential and non-residential and the petitioner is not entitled to demolish the entire building for the purpose of construction of Non-residential alone. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 5. The learned Rent Controller, after appraisal of the evidence adduced by the landlord in P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the documentary evidence produced in Exhibit P-1 to P-25 and the evidence of the tenant examined as R.W.1, had come to a conclusion that the landlord, bona fide, required the petition mentioned building for immediate occupation for demolition and reconstruction. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, passed by the learned Rent Controller, the tenant had preferred the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.16 of 2004 and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had, after going through the evidence placed by both parties before the Rent Controller and the order of the Rent Controller, dismissed the appeal by confirming the eviction order passed against the tenant and granted one month time to deliver the vacant possession. 7. Thetenant who is the revision petitioner herein had preferred this revision against the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. 8. Heard Mr. K. Lavan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan learned counsel for the respondent. For convenience sake, the status of the parties as landlord and tenant are maintained in this revision. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit in his argument that both the Courts below have erred in law in allowing the claim of the landlord in passing an order of eviction against the tenant under Section 14(i)(b) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. He would also submit that the ingredients of Section 14(i)(b) of the said Act were not proved to warrant an eviction under the said provision but however both the Courts below had ordered eviction. He would again submit that the landlord did not produce any proof regarding the age of the building and the permission from the municipality for demolition of the existing building was not obtained by the landlord and therefore, the claim of the and lord would not be a bona fide one. He would again submit that the landlord did not produce any proof regarding the age of the building and the permission from the municipality for demolition of the existing building was not obtained by the landlord and therefore, the claim of the and lord would not be a bona fide one. He would also submit that the landlord did not plead that the building is required for immediate demolition and therefore, he is not entitled to evict the tenant as per the dictum of this Court made in Ameeruddin and four Others v. Premakumari, 1995 (1) CTC 340 . He would also submit that the building leased to the tenant was said to have been in a dilapidated condition in the year 1996 when the RCOP was filed but to contrary, the said building is still strong which would disprove the case of the landlord. He would also submit that the description of the property was not properly given and however, the Courts below have ordered eviction of the tenant from Door No.2 Muthulingareddy Street, Tambaram which is not correct and therefore, the decree granted in R.C.O.P.No.122 of 1995 cannot be enforced. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate the contention of the tenant that the landlord did not prove the steps taken by her for demolition of the building and the said demolition should have been imminent and immediate which was not proved by the landlord. He would also submit that despite all other tenants have vacated the premises, the landlord did not take any steps to demolish the rear side or the middle wing of the building which is unconnected with the front building. He would also submit that since description of the property does not contain the separate door number for the demised premises, the landlord did not comply with the Rule 3 of Tamilnadu Building Rules. He would further submit that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority did not find out the real intention of the landlord to evict the existing tenants and to claim for higher rent or to sell the premises for good price and therefore, the landlord has no bona fide intention to demolish and reconstruct the said building. He would further submit that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority did not find out the real intention of the landlord to evict the existing tenants and to claim for higher rent or to sell the premises for good price and therefore, the landlord has no bona fide intention to demolish and reconstruct the said building. Therefore, he would request that the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has to be interfered and set aside and in consequence, the order of the learned Rent Controller may also be set aside and the petition before the learned Rent Controller may be dismissed Therefore, he would seek the revision petition be allowed. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit in his argument that the concurrent finding of the lower Courts that the landlord is entitled for the eviction of the tenant under Section 14(i)(b) of the said Act cannot be interfered, since both the Courts below have factually found the bona fide of the landlord in seeking the immediate demolition of the said building for putting up reconstruction and had been accepted and the fact that the landlord did not let out the vacated portions of the other tenants to any new tenants would show the bona fide of the landlord. He would submit in his argument that the present revision petitioner along with yet another tenant who are the remaining persons to vacate the premises for commencing the work of demolition and reconstruction. He would also submit that the landlord has produced the approved plan Exhibit P-4 and the Fixed Deposit Receipts produced in Exhibit P-10 and P-11 and the bank accounts in Exhibit P-12 and P-13, in order to show her readiness to demolish the existing building and to construct the new building over the site. The capacity of the landlord can also be inferred from Exhibit P-7 to P-9 and Exhibit P-14 to P-25, the various audit reports income tax details of the landlord so as to prove the capacity of the landlords to reconstruct the building in the site. 11. He would further submit that the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 would prove the case of the landlord, regarding the bona fide requirement of the demised premises for immediate demolition and reconstruction of new building. 11. He would further submit that the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 would prove the case of the landlord, regarding the bona fide requirement of the demised premises for immediate demolition and reconstruction of new building. He would cite the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in between Viswamithramkumar v. Vesta Time Company (2007) 14 SCC 374 in support of his case. He would also draw the attention of the Court that no contra evidence has been adduced by the tenant and therefore, the case of the petitioner should have been deemed as proved. He would also submit that the concurrent findings reached by the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority cannot be interfered unless there is a serious error committed by both in violation of the principles of law. He would also produce a judgment of our Apex Court in between Shakeelulr Rahman v. Syed Mehdi Ispahani (2003) 1 SCC 414 : (2003) 1 MLJ 189, for the said proposition of law. He would further submit that the principles laid down in between P. Orr and Sons Private Limited v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited (1991) 1 SCC 301 has been modified in a judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court between Vijay Singh and Others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal AIR 1997 SC a.47 : (1996) 6 SCC 475 : (1997) 1 MLJ 98. He would again refer a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in between Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani and Another AIR 2002 SC 2268 : (2002) 5 SCC 229 : (2002) 3 MLJ 130, for the similar principles of law. He would also submit in his argument that the bona fide of the landlord could be ascertained from his intention to reconstruct or rebuild the building in the same place and it need not be shown to Court that the said building is at the verge of collapse or in a dilapidated condition. Further, he would rely upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in between Kalliani and Others v. Madhavi and Others (1970) KLT 257. As regards bona fide of the landlord, he would also draw the attention of the Court to a judgment of our Apex Court in between b.S. Venugopal v. A. Karuppasamy and Another AIR 2006 SC 1930 : (2006) 4 SCC 507 : (2006) 3 MLJ 29. As regards bona fide of the landlord, he would also draw the attention of the Court to a judgment of our Apex Court in between b.S. Venugopal v. A. Karuppasamy and Another AIR 2006 SC 1930 : (2006) 4 SCC 507 : (2006) 3 MLJ 29. He would further submit that the age of the building was admittedly more than 50 years and the evidence of the landlord would show that she had the capacity of putting up construction in the event of vacating the premises by the tenants as per the order of the Court and the requirement of the building on the part of the landlord was also bona fide and therefore, the findings reached by the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the findings of the Rent Controller need not be disturbed. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the revision. 12. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. Indisputably the revision petitioner was a tenant under the respondent/landlord in respect of the demised premises as described in the petition. The tenant examined as RW1 had admitted in his evidence that he was in possession of the demised premises for more than 49 years as a tenant. Therefore, the age of the building would be more than 50 years. The ground on which the landlord has filed a petition before the lower Court was for demolition of the entire building for reconstruction. The case of the landlord that all the 15 other tenants had vacated the premises and the tenant herein and yet another tenant or yet to vacate the premises for the purpose of demolition of the entire building. The evidence of landlord as P.W.1 would go to show that no new tenants were inducted in the premises where the tenants already vacated the portions of the entire building. There was no contra evidence to the said evidence and therefore, we could see that out of the entire building, the revision petitioner and yet another tenant alone are yet to vacate the premises. 13. There was no contra evidence to the said evidence and therefore, we could see that out of the entire building, the revision petitioner and yet another tenant alone are yet to vacate the premises. 13. The rent controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had come to a uniform conclusion that the landlord has bona fide intention to demolish the entire building for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building and the requirement of the land lord was for imminent immediate purpose of therefore, the tenant has to deliver possession of the building to the landlord within a specified date. Whether this Court can interfere with the said concurrent findings of the lower Courts, for that it has become necessary to extract Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960. .(1) Notwithstanding anything contain this Act, but subject to the provisions of Sections 12 and 13, on an application made by a landlord, the Controller shall, if he is satisfied- .(a) that the building is bona fide required by the land lord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated; or .(b) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date. .(2) No order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building under this Section shall be passed- .(a) on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the building shall, on completion of the repairs, be offered to the tenant, who delivered possession in pursuance an order under sub-section (1) for his reoccupation before the expiry of three months from the date of recovery of possession by the landlord, or before the expiry of such further period as the Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow: or (b) on the ground specified in clause (b) of subsection (1), unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building shall be substantially commenced by him not later than one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building or before the expiry of such further period as the Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing allow. .(3) Nothing contained in his Section shall entitle the landlord who has recovered possession of the building for repairs to convert a residential building into a non-residential building or a non-residential building into a residential building unless such conversion is permitted by the Controller at the time of passing an order under sub-section. .(4) Notwithstanding an order passed by the Controller under clause (a) of sub-section (1) directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building, such tenant shall be deemed to continue to be the tenant, but the landlord shall not be entitled to any rent for the period commencing on the date of delivery of possession of the building by the tenant to the landlord and ending with the date on which the building is offered to the tenant by the landlord in pursuance of the undertaking under clause (a) of sub-section (2). .(5) Nothing in this Section shall entitle any landlord of a building in respect of which the Government shall be deemed to be the tenant to make any application under this Section. 14. In view of the evidence adduced by the tenant as RW-1 that he was in possession of more than 49 years, we have already seen that demised premises was a very old building. 15. 14. In view of the evidence adduced by the tenant as RW-1 that he was in possession of more than 49 years, we have already seen that demised premises was a very old building. 15. As regards, the financial position of the landlord is concerned, the Fixed Deposit receipts produced as Exhibit P-11 and P-12 and the bank accounts produced in Exhibits P-13 and P-14 and the other audit reports, income tax details produced as Exhibits P-8 to P-10, P-15 to P-25 would show that the landlord has got sound finance to reconstruct the premises, if demolished. The documentary evidence placed on record would show that the landlord was an income tax assesses. The evidence of P.W.1 has also explained as to how the land-lord would arrange funds required for reconstruction as per the plan Exhibit P-3. Therefore, it cannot be doubted that the landlord is having sufficient means to reconstruct the building. 16. As far as the immediate purpose of demolishing is concerned, the report of the Engineer and the Commissioner ought to have been pursued. According to the Engineer’s report in Exhibit P-7 it has been categorically mentioned that the building was very old and aged more than 50 years. It has been found by the lower Court that the Commissioner’s opinion was also coinciding with the report of the Engineer PW2. 17. According to the judgment of Kerala High Court in between Kalliani and others v. V. Madhavi and others (supra) it has been held as follows:- “Counsel, however, argues and rightly, that the building must be in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and this ingredient has to be made out part from the landlord’s bona fide intention to reconstruct Here, it is argued that the stress is upon the physical condition of the building. I do not agree. If eviction can be had only on the Court being satisfied that the physical condition of the building is on the verge of collapse, there is no doubt that few buildings could be evicted before they have actually collapsed. I do not agree. If eviction can be had only on the Court being satisfied that the physical condition of the building is on the verge of collapse, there is no doubt that few buildings could be evicted before they have actually collapsed. Knowing the length of time taken in rent control litigation in Kerala, not unusual to find the period between the institution of an application and its ultimate disposal in the revisional Court lengthening into several years if a building perilously close to sinking alone can justify a petition under Section 11(4) (iv) in a State with heavy monsoons, I do not know what purpose would be served by such a course except to endanger the (sic) lives of tenants, it is obvious, therefore, that a wider and more realistic meaning must be given to the expression “condition of the building.” The social purpose of this provision is to remove the road blocks in the way of progress in building programmes. Old structures in newly developing areas may be like pimples on fair faces. Replacement and renewal of obsolescent and unsightly buildings to make room for large, modern constructions is a social necessity, provided existing tenants are not thrown into the streets. The “condition of the building” is a larger concept which includes considerations of social surroundings and allied factors. Where the building is very old and incongruous with the social setting and the surroundings of the place, the Court has got to take a more liberal view in applying the provision of law.” 18. In the aforesaid judgment Section 11(4) (iv) of buildings Act which is similar to Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 has been dealt with. It has been opined in the judgment of the Kerala High Court, Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in his judgment that the physical condition of the building need not have been at the verge of collapse for the purpose of ordering eviction of the tenants. The said view has been supported by the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in between S. Venugopal v. A Karruppusami and Another (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment would run thus at p.31 of MLJ: “6. The said view has been supported by the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in between S. Venugopal v. A Karruppusami and Another (supra). The relevant portion of the judgment would run thus at p.31 of MLJ: “6. On the question of demolition and reconstruction of the premises in question, much was sought to be made out of the fact that the condition of the building had not been ascertained and, while according to the tenants it was not in a dilapidated condition, according to the landlord it was in a dilapidated condition. We do not attach much importance to the question as to whether the building was or was not in a dilapidated condition because Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short the Act”) contemplates a building which is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. Therefore, Section 14(1)(b) does not contemplate that the building sought to be demolished must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition. Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site” 19. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (Tenant) of this Court in Ammeeruddin and four others v. Premakumari (supra) would lay a principle to that effect that the building should be in a dilapidated condition and requirement of immediate demolition should have been averred and proved. The said judgment was based relying upon the judgment of our Apex Court (1990) II law weekly 547 in P.Orr and Sons (P) Ltd., v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. (supra). In the said judgment, it has been mentioned that the requirement of building either for repair or reconstruction should be on the condition of the building itself was in a dilapidated conditions. But, the said judgment was modified in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in between Vijay Singh and Others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (supra). The relevant portion would run as follows at p. 104 of MLJ: “8. But, the said judgment was modified in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in between Vijay Singh and Others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, (supra). The relevant portion would run as follows at p. 104 of MLJ: “8. On reading Section 14(1)(b) along with Section 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. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 contemplates that permission has been granted by the Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(b) for demolition of the building, but if such demolition is not carried out in terms of the order and undertaking, then the Rent Controller can order the land lord to put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions. If the building is dangerous and dilapidated 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 such 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 position taken by the respondent or the appellants can be accepted. Permission under Section 14(i)(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. Permission under Section 14(i)(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 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 an 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.” 20. The aforesaid dictum laid down by the constitution bench of Hon’ble Apex Court was followed in the judgment in between Shakeeluir Rahman v. Syed Mehdi Ispahani (supra). The relevant passage runs thus at p 191 of MLJ: “9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court interfered with the concurrent finding of the lower authorities in regard to the age of the building which is illegal. No exception can be taken to the contention, but it does not alter the result. As noted above, both Rent Controller and the Appellate authority proceeded on the basis as if age and condition of the building are the sine qua non for application of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act based on the view expressed in P. Orr and Sons (P) Ltd., v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. (supra). As noted above, both Rent Controller and the Appellate authority proceeded on the basis as if age and condition of the building are the sine qua non for application of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act based on the view expressed in P. Orr and Sons (P) Ltd., v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. (supra). But in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in Viiay Singh’s case (supra) though age and condition of the building sought to be demolished are relevant factors to test bona fides of the landlord, they are not determinative of the issue. Though we do not approve the High Court’s approach in interfering with the concurrent findings of fate, yet we do not consider it necessary or just to interfere with the order under challenge, as on the other concurrent findings of facts recorded by the lower authorities, referred to above, a finding of bona fide requirement of the landlord has been recorded by the High Court which is affirmed by us. The finding is sufficient to sustain the order under challenge.” .21. Similar view has been referred by Hon’ble Apex Court in Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani and Another (supra) the relevant passage runs thus at.p.132 of MLJ: .“5. …The decision by the appellate Court was rendered on 22. 1994 when three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in P. Orr and Sons (P) Ltd. V. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. (supra) was holding the filed and in view of the construction placed by this Court in P.Orr & Sons the Appellate Court was persuaded to deny eviction in spite of the finding of the facts being for the landlord. The High Court has rightly set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and ordered eviction following the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh and Others v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal. (supra) Case. It is true that the landlords have not pleaded and relied on the age and condition of the building as one of the components of their bona fides but that is immaterial. The age and condition of the building has been determined and is available for assessing the bona fides of the landlords’ need.” 22. (supra) Case. It is true that the landlords have not pleaded and relied on the age and condition of the building as one of the components of their bona fides but that is immaterial. The age and condition of the building has been determined and is available for assessing the bona fides of the landlords’ need.” 22. In view of the beads role judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the point as issue, this Court could conclude that the pleading regarding the condition of the building in a dilapidated stage or at the verge of collapse is not essential. Applying all these decisions to the facts of the present case, we could see that the building is admittedly more than 50 years old and all the other tenants except two tenants including the revision petitioner, have already vacated the premises, so as to enable the landlord to demolish the existing structure and to erect a new construction on the site. We have already found from the evidence of P.W.1, that he had not inducted new tenants in the vacated premises of the old tenants. Therefore, we can see that the intention of the landlord to demolish the existing building on the site cannot be doubted. We have already seen the financial status and the capacity of the landlord to reconstruct the building. The objection raised by the tenant that the landlord is trying to induct new tenants for higher rent or to sell the property for higher price, after vacating the tenants cannot be true at any stretch of imagination. Since the landlord is keeping the evicted premises without inducting any new tenant, the landlord had also given an undertaking to demolish the existing structure within one month from the date of delivery so as to reconstruct the new building in the said site. I could see the intention of the landlord to demolish the demised premises along with remaining building and to put up new construction on the site is bona fide. .23. According to the evidence in which the property located area comprising both residential and commercial. It is admittedly situated within the greater madras City therefore, the intention of the landlord to demolish and reconstruct new building at its site cannot be held as not bona fide intention. 24. .23. According to the evidence in which the property located area comprising both residential and commercial. It is admittedly situated within the greater madras City therefore, the intention of the landlord to demolish and reconstruct new building at its site cannot be held as not bona fide intention. 24. On a careful analysis of the aforesaid judgments referred supra and the discussions held above, the concurrent findings of Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the land lord has got a bona fide intention to demolish the existing structures in the described schedule mentioned property for erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished cannot be interfered. The said concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on the sound principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority need not be interfered and set aside. 25. However, the litigation in between the parties started from the year 1996 and 13 years passed by this time. In order to protect the interest of both the revision petitioners/tenants are given three months time to vacate and deliver of the passion of the schedule mentioned demised premises to the landlord/respondent. In default to deliver the possession by the revision petitioner/tenant to the respondent/landlord, the respondent/landlord is at liberty to proceed with execution for delivery of the said demised premises. 26. With the above observations, this revision petition is dismissed. No cost, Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.