Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009 passed by the VII Appellate Rent Controller, Chennai, confirming the order dated 19.8.2008 passed by the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCOP.No.2082 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed by the landlords. 2. Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (a) The revision petitioners/landlords filed the RCOP.No.2082 of 2006 invoking Sections 14(I))(b), 10(2)(II)(B) and 10(2)(II)(A) of the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the following grounds: (i) For demolition and reconstruction; (ii) The tenant used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased; and (iii) The tenant sub-let the demised premises. (b) The matter was contested by the respondents/tenants. Ultimately the lower Court dismissed the RCOP. (c) As against the said order of the lower Court, appeal was filed by the landlords for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate authority, confirming the order of the Rent Controller. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of both the Courts below, this revision is filed on various grounds. 4. The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners/landlords placing reliance on the grounds of revision would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The appellate Court having given categorical findings in favour of the landlords with regard to the dilapidated condition of the building and the financial wherewithal of the landlords to raise a new building, after demolishing the existing building, simply turned turtle and gave a finding as though the filing of the application by the landlords for fixation of fair rent was fatal to the case of them in seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. (ii) The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners/landlords would submit that he is not arguing the revision justifying the grounds of sub-letting and the act of the tenants in putting the building for a different user. 5. (ii) The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners/landlords would submit that he is not arguing the revision justifying the grounds of sub-letting and the act of the tenants in putting the building for a different user. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments, as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioners/landlords would advance his arguments, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: (i) The conduct of the landlords should necessarily be taken into account because the landlords, with their henchmen earlier, attempted to dispossess the tenants forcibly, which resulted in the tenants filing the civil suit seeking injunction. (ii) The landlords also filed an application for fixation of fair rent, which clearly shows their mind that they are not in bona fide requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction. (iii) The law has now completely changed to the effect that the Court need not take into account the age of the building. (iv) The Courts are enjoined to find out the dilapidated nature of the building and see as to whether demolition and reconstruction is warranted. As such, the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants would pray for dismissal of the revision petition by highlighting the point that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act would not be justified in re-appreciating the evidence and arrive at a different view from the one arrived at by the Courts below as against the landlords. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the requirement of the demised premises by the landlords for demolition and reconstruction is not a bona fide one? 8. At the out set itself it is just and proper to fumigate my mind with the precedents relating to Section 14(1)(b) of the Act: (i) 2006(2) CTC 615 – S.VENUGOPAL VS. A.KARRUPPUSAMI AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus: "7. 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. 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. 11. 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-storied 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. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was willing to invest a sum of Rs.One and a half lakh of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs." (ii) (2002)3 M.L.J.130(S.C.) - HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL VS. S.M.ISPAHANI AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus: 8. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was willing to invest a sum of Rs.One and a half lakh of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs." (ii) (2002)3 M.L.J.130(S.C.) - HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL VS. S.M.ISPAHANI AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus: 8. ..........................." A procedure can be devised to protect the interest of both the tenant and the landlord, specially by taking care of the apprehension expressed by the tenant that the property may remain lying unconstructed inspite of being vacated by the tenant and followed by demolition if the plans for proposed construction are not sanctioned by the local authority. The decree as passed by the High Court is sustained but it is directed that the landlords shall submit the plans of re-construction for the approval of the local authority. Only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authority the decree for eviction shall be available for execution. Such sanctioned or approved plans shall be produced before the Executing Court whereupon the Execution Court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and delivering possession to the landlord-decree holders. Till then the tenant shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the suit premises at the same rate at which they are being paid along with the plans the landlords shall also file an undertaking before the Executing Court as required by Clause (b) of Sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.14 of the Act." (iii) 1997-1-L.W.218 – VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS VS. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMAL, certain excerpts from it would run thus: "14. It appears from the facts of the present appeals that the building in question was an old one and was situated in a very busy locality of the town where a number of buildings in and around the building in question had been demolished and shopping complex had been constructed with modern amenities. The respondent also wanted to demolish the entire building in order to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary permission from the municipal authorities had already been obtained. It had also been claimed on behalf of the respondent that she had sufficient financial resources for construction of the new building. The respondent also wanted to demolish the entire building in order to construct a new shopping complex for which necessary permission from the municipal authorities had already been obtained. It had also been claimed on behalf of the respondent that she had sufficient financial resources for construction of the new building. An understanding had also been given on behalf of the respondent that the work of demolition of the building would commence within one month and would be completed before the expiry of the three months from the date the said respondent recovered possession of the building. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Controller had passed an order in terms of S.14(1)(b) of the Act directing the appellants who were tenants in the building in question to delivery possession of the building to the respondent. According to us, all relevant factors have been taken into consideration and there is no scope for any interference by this Court. As such, we are left with no option but to dismiss these appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed." 9. It is also appropriate to refer to the precedents cited on the side of the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants. (i) 1998 (III) CTC 679 – SARLA AHUJA V. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., certain excerpts from it would run thus: 6. The above proviso indicates that power of the High Court is supervisory in nature and it is intended to ensure that the Rent Controller conforms to law when he passes the order. The satisfaction of the High Court when perusing the records of the case must be confined to the limited sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is “according to the law”. In other words, the High Court shall scrutinize the records to ascertain whether any illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in passing the order under Section 25-B. It is not permissible for the High Court in that exercise to come to a different fact finding unless the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller on the facts is so unreasonable that no Rent Controller should have reached such a finding on the materials available. 7. Although, the word “revision” is not employed in the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Act, it is evident from the language used therein that the power conferred is revisional power. 7. Although, the word “revision” is not employed in the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Act, it is evident from the language used therein that the power conferred is revisional power. In legal parlance, distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction is well understood. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction is wide enough to afford a rehearing of the whole case for enabling the appellate forum to arrive at fresh conclusions untrammelled by the conclusions reached in the order challenged before it. Of course, the statute which provides appeal provision can circumscribe or limit the width of such appellate powers. Revisional power, on the contrary, is ordinarily a power of supervision keeping subordinate tribunals within the bounds of law. Expansion or constriction of such revisional power would depend upon how the statute has couched such power therein. In some legislations, revisional jurisdiction is meant for satisfying itself as to the regularity, legality or propriety of proceedings or decisions of the subordinate court. In Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar1 this Court considered the scope of the words (“the High Court may call for and examine the records … to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order …”) by which power of revision has been conferred by a particular statute. Dealing with the contention that the above words indicated conferment of a very wide power on the revisional authority, this Court has observed thus in the said decision: (SCC p. 262, para 3) “The dominant idea conveyed by the incorporation of the words ‘to satisfy itself’ under Section 25 appears to be that the power conferred on the High Court under Section 25 is essentially a power of superintendence. Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Section 25 the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority.” 11. Learned Single Judge of the High Court in the present case has reassessed and reappraised the evidence afresh to reach a different finding as though it was exercising appellate jurisdiction. No doubt even while exercising revisional jurisdiction, a reappraisal of evidence can be made, but that should be for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact-finding court is wholly unreasonable. No doubt even while exercising revisional jurisdiction, a reappraisal of evidence can be made, but that should be for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact-finding court is wholly unreasonable. A reading of the impugned order shows that the High Court has overstepped the limit of its power as a revisional court. The order impugned on that score is hence vitiated by jurisdictional deficiency." (ii) (2003) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 610 – P.M.PUNNOOSE VS. K.M.MUNNERUDDIN AND OTHERS, certain excerpts from it would run thus: "Rent Control and Eviction – Revision- Jurisdiction of High Court under S.25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (18 of 1960) – Scope – Wilful default by tenant in payment of arrears of rent alleged – Question of fact – Finding of fact arrived at by appellate authority should not be lightly interfered with – On facts held, interference by High Court was not justified." (iii) 1997(III) CTC 469 – R.Mohammed Hanif vs. Abdul Wahab and others, certain excerpts from it would run thus: "10. It is also necessary to mention that even though in the case reported in R.P.David and another v. N.Daniel(died) and others, 1967(1) M.L.J.110, the Bench of two Judges of the Apex Court held that the only requirement of Section 14(1)(b) is the honest desire of the landlord to demolish the building and such demolition to be made or the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the old building sought to be demolished and there is nothing in the language of this Clause to warrant the view that the building should be old and decrepit . . . . ", the Apex Court in the latest decision on the point in M/s.P.Orr & Sons(P) Ltd., v. M/s.Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, 1990(2) L.W.547, a Bench of three judges has over-ruled the earlier decision namely R.P.David and another v. N.Daniel(Died) and others, 1967(1) MLJ 110 . . . . ", the Apex Court in the latest decision on the point in M/s.P.Orr & Sons(P) Ltd., v. M/s.Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, 1990(2) L.W.547, a Bench of three judges has over-ruled the earlier decision namely R.P.David and another v. N.Daniel(Died) and others, 1967(1) MLJ 110 . While dealing with requirement for evicting under Section 14(1)(b), the Apex Court in M/s P.Orr & Sons (P) Ltd., v. M/s.Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, 1990(2) L.W.547: 1991 S.C.C. 301, has held that the condition of the building shall be the overriding consideration for the test of bona fide requirement for demolishing the building, in the absence of which, it shall not be possible for the landlord to prove his bona fide requirement for the immediate demolition. In the said decision namely, P.Orr.& Sons (P) Ltd., v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, 1990(2) L.W. 547, the Apex Court has observed as follows: "Various circumstances such as the capacity of the landlord, the size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authority in considering an application for recovery, but the essential and overriding consideration which, in the general interests of the public and for the protection of the tenants from unreasonable eviction, the legislature has in mind is the condition of the building that demands timely demolition by reason of the extent of damage to its structure making it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs." Therefore, while arriving at a finding as to the condition of the building, that demands timely demolition, the extent of damage to its structure has also become an essential requirement. 18. In the instant case, as already stated, the respondent/landlords admittedly have not proved the condition of the building at all as to indicate a bona fide requirement for the time, genuine and direct purpose of demolition and reconstruction, nor have chosen to prove the same through evidence of the Commissioner or a Civil Engineer, except by marking photographs Exs.P5 and P6 which are also denied by the revision petitioner-tenant that the said photographs are not related to the building in question. Even the contention of the respondent-landlord namely P.W.1 as to the condition of the building is that only flooring and plastering are in a damaged condition, it is not substantially proved by the respondent-landlord as to the building making it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repair sand to indicate a bona fide requirement for the timely, genuine and direct purpose of demolition and reconstruction as required in the decision reported in the case of P.Orr & Sons (Private) Ltd., v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited, 1991(1) SCC 301 : 1990 (2) L.W.547." 10. A mere poring over and perusal of the above excerpts, including the whole judgments would amply make the point clear that even though this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is having more revisional powers than exercising its revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 115 of the C.P.C. yet it cannot assume the role of an appellate Court, which is the last Court of facts. Unless there is perversity or gross illegality, the question of interfering in revision under Section 25 of the Act would not arise. 11. A mere poring over and perusal of those decisions would clearly highlight and spotlight the fact that absolutely there is no conflict in the view expressed by the Courts. The law in my opinion is well settled that the Court, while considering the requirement of the demised premises by the landlords for demolition and reconstruction, need not concentrate much on the dilapidated condition of the building, so to say, the building need not be imminently dangerous etc. It is sufficient if there are materials to demonstrate and display that the landlord wants to demolish the existing superstructure for the purpose of constructing a new building so as to augment more income and that continuing with the existing old building might not be lucrative from any angle. 12. Here the appellate authority in its judgment at paragraph Nos.15 to 19 clearly has given his findings in favour of the landlords to the effect that the building has to be demolished and reconstructed as it is in a dilapidated condition. 12. Here the appellate authority in its judgment at paragraph Nos.15 to 19 clearly has given his findings in favour of the landlords to the effect that the building has to be demolished and reconstructed as it is in a dilapidated condition. To arrive at such a conclusion, he has also placed reliance on the Engineers report and pointed out that the superstructure is of bricks with lime mortar and the roofing is of ACC sheet. As such, considering all these factual aspects, the appellate authority has clearly given his finding in favour of the landlords that the building is not strong as projected by the tenants. 13. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the tenants would invite the attention of this Court to the fact that the very same landlords, while seeking fixation of fair rent at higher level, projected as though the building would fetch more rent. According to the learned counsel for the tenants, the landlords were approbating and reprobating, blowing hot and cold and such a conduct on the part of the landlords could never be labelled or dubbed as bona fide and as such, the ultimate conclusion of the Courts below that there were no bona fides on the part of the landlords in seeking the demised building for demolition and reconstruction, warrants no interference. 14. However, the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners/landlords would submit that the findings given by the appellate authority ultimately are in favour of the landlords that the building developed cracks, that it was also leaking in some places and that it is not a new building or a building of recent origin, and in such a case keeping in mind the view expressed by the Honourable Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, the Courts below could have rightly ordered for eviction on the ground of the landlords requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction. 15. I would like to agree with the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the landlords because the ultimate finding of the appellate Court is that the building is in a dilapidated condition. Even for argument sake it is taken that in the application filed for fixation of fair rent there was some embellishment in describing the building nonetheless it would not affect the reality that the building is an old one. Even for argument sake it is taken that in the application filed for fixation of fair rent there was some embellishment in describing the building nonetheless it would not affect the reality that the building is an old one. The application for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction cannot be rejected simply because the landlords filed the application for fixation of fair rent. 16. As has been correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the landlords that regarding the finding of facts are concerned, this Court would be reluctant to interfere while exercising its powers under Section 25 of the Act. There is also nothing to exemplify and portray that even in the application filed for fixation of fair rent, the building has been described as a new building and that it requires no demolition and reconstruction etc. 17. It is evident from the dictum laid down consistently in the aforesaid decisions of the Honourable Apex Court that a landlord is always at liberty to put his premises into a much more beneficial use then the existing lackluster and uneconomical one and derive more income and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms that the landlord should not aspire for more income etc. 18. Here indubitably and indisputably, obviously and axiomatically the demised premises is situated in a busy market locality, so to say, in the heart of the Chennai city. The entire ground area of the building is 10,600 sq.ft and the area occupied by the building is less than half of its extent and no landlord having head over shoulder would ever think of keeping such a large ground with a dilapidated building and get himself satisfied with the meagre income of Rs.6000/- per month arising out of it. 19. The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners/landlords would appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly submit that even by phantasmagorical thoughts a person cannot visualise that a ground of 10,600 sq.feet in the heart of the city of Madras would fetch only Rs.6000/- per month as rent. As such, that itself in my opinion is sufficient to understand that the landlords in this case have bona fide intention to demolish that insignificant structure and raise sufficiently good building so as to augment their income. 20. Bona fide is a subjective term. As such, that itself in my opinion is sufficient to understand that the landlords in this case have bona fide intention to demolish that insignificant structure and raise sufficiently good building so as to augment their income. 20. Bona fide is a subjective term. At this juncture, my mind hark back to the following maxim: Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta – External acts indicate undisclosed thoughts. 21. Even a devil cannot understand what is there in the heart of a person and only by objective facts one could assess certain things. The aforesaid objective facts detailed and delineated in my discussion supra would amply make the point clear that objectively the landlords placed before the Court that they wanted to put the demised premises into a much more beneficial use to their utmost benefit, which the tenants cannot find fault with under one pretext or other. 22. No doubt, the tenants would state that there were some attempts on the part of the landlords in forcibly dispossessing them. But that has not been decided by the Court. 23. I also recollect the following maxim: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – After this, therefore because of this. It is a fallacy in logic. 24. Simply because earlier some mis-understanding erupted between the landlord and the tenant, the same cannot be taken that the subsequent filing of the petition was actuated or motivated, galvanised or geared, propelled or impelled by such earlier misunderstanding. Objectively once the landlords are capable of establishing that their proposal is for the purpose of putting up a new building, so as to derive more income instead of carrying on with their age old building and getting meagre income of Rs.6000/- per month, there could be no ground for suspecting their bona fides. The appellate Court grossly fell into error in holding that because an application for fixation of fair rent was filed, the intention of the landlords was not bona fide. 25. It is a common or garden principle that now a days in the litigative process a landlord has to take years together to achieve success. In the meanwhile if the landlord is forced to get satisfied with the agreed meagre rent, then naturally he would be prejudiced and that in my opinion would be a dangerous proposition also. 25. It is a common or garden principle that now a days in the litigative process a landlord has to take years together to achieve success. In the meanwhile if the landlord is forced to get satisfied with the agreed meagre rent, then naturally he would be prejudiced and that in my opinion would be a dangerous proposition also. Pending the long litigative battle for getting evicted the tenant, the revision petitioners/landlords wanted to get more income also from the tenants and with that intention they filed the RCOP for fixation of fair rent which cannot be found fault with. 26. It is also quite understandable that fair rent once fixed is payable from the date of the application till the date of eviction and as such, all these factors should have been considered by the Courts below. But oblivion of these salient features the appellate Court simply in a perverse manner held that the filing of the petition for fixation of fair rent bespoke the lack of bona fides on the part of the landlords in filing the RCOP. 27. The learned counsel for the tenants also would submit that the evidence as put forth on the side of the landlords relating to the dilapidated condition of the building was not satisfactory, as there is a building with RCC roof of an extent of 19 sq.feet and the same was not at all taken note of and even the landlords pleaded ignorance about it. 28. I am of the view that 19 sq.feet is an insignificant area in such a large area of 10600 sq. feet and that too that 19 sq.feet refers to a toilet area. As such, the tenants cannot capitalise the said fact to their benefit and try to achieve success in the litigative battle. Hence, in this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the decision rendered by the appellate authority suffers from perversity and illegality, warranting interference in the revision. As such, the tenants cannot capitalise the said fact to their benefit and try to achieve success in the litigative battle. Hence, in this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the decision rendered by the appellate authority suffers from perversity and illegality, warranting interference in the revision. It is not as though this Court re-evaluated the facts and arrived at a different view, but this Court points out that the approach of the appellate Court was not at all appreciable, but it was an approach fraught with perversity and illegality, warranting interference by this Court in revision and accordingly, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the RCOP is allowed only on the ground that the landlords require the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction. 29. It is quite obvious that in this case the building plan also was filed. Accordingly, this revision is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 30. However, I am of the considered view that sufficient time could be granted for vacating the premises as the Respondents/tenants are businessmen occupying the premises and they might take some time to vacate it. Hence granting six months time for vacating the demised premises would meet the ends of justice; accordingly, it is granted subject to payment of rent regularly without any default and to that effect the respondents/tenants should file an affidavit within 15 days from this date. 31. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.