Judgment :- 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent landlord filed RCOP.No.38 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Controller (Second Additional District Munsif, Salem) for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, denial of title of the landlord and for demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction on the ground of denial of title by the tenant and on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and negatived the case of the landlord in respect of wilful default. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed RCA.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority(Principal Subordinate Judge),Salem and during the pendency of the said appeal he filed I.A.No.23 of 2010 for appointment of a Commissioner to note down the nature of the construction of the premises and that petition was dismissed. Against the same, this revision petition is filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner has taken a stand that even during the rent control proceedings that after inducting him as a tenant into the possession of the property, with the consent of the landlord he demolished the total construction and put up a terrace building and obtained Electricity and water connection in his name and therefore, he has become the owner of the superstructure. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and the landlord cannot maintain the application for eviction under the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act. It is further submitted that as the building is in good condition, there is no need to demolish the building and only to find out the condition of the building and to find out the fact that the electricity connection and water connection are in the name of the tenant, the application for appointment of advocate commissioner was filed and that was not properly appreciated by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and therefore, the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. 4. He relied on a judgement in T.S.Ramu vs. Neelakandan reported in 2004 (2) CTC 674 in support of his contention that Commissioner can be appointed even in the first appeal to note down the physical condition of the building. 5. 4. He relied on a judgement in T.S.Ramu vs. Neelakandan reported in 2004 (2) CTC 674 in support of his contention that Commissioner can be appointed even in the first appeal to note down the physical condition of the building. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner was inducted into the possession of the building as a tenant. Even assuming that he demolished the building with the consent of the landlord and put up the new building in that place, he cannot become the owner of the superstructure and cannot claim the benefits under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The petitioner is entitled to claim protection under the Tamil Nadu City Tenant Protection Act only when he took the land alone for rent and thereafter put up the new construction. In this case, admittedly the tenant has taken the premises on lease with building and therefore, there is no question of applicability of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant Protection Act. 6. Further the eviction petition was filed on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and it is the case of the landlord/respondent that he wants to demolish the building and reconstruct a new building and in such application, the court has to find out the bonafide requirement of the landlord and the condition of the building may not have much relevance, when the landlord requirement is bonafide. 7. Therefore, after considering the pleadings of both sides, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the application for appointment of commissioner and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The revision is dismissed. No costs. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the RCA.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subjudge, Salem within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Learned Rent Control Appellate authority is also directed to dispose of the appeal on merits un-influencing with the observations made by this Court. Consequently the connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed.