Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioners are the tenants. The first respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.1256 of 2007 on the file of the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai against revision petitioners 1 to 3 and the second respondent herein for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction of the property. 2. The case of the first respondent/landlord is that the revision petitioners are carrying on business in the premises owned by him and the building is in a dilapidated condition and in the year 2002, he had filed R.C.O.P.Nos.1637 to 1640 of 2002 for fixation of fair rent in respect of the portions occupied by revision petitioners 1 to 3 and the second respondent and fair rent was fixed by the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority revised the fair rent and against the same, revision petitions are pending before the High Court. It is further stated that the building is a Type II structure and it has got a leaking roof with lots of structural cracks from the ground to the roof level and the building is situated in a commercially important area and if the structure is pulled down and a new structure is put up, the same would be beneficial to the landlord in all respects. It is further stated that the other tenants, who are occupying the first floor, are his family members and they have agreed to vacate and hand over vacant possession and his wife is running a Physiotherapy Unit in a portion and she also agreed to vacate the same for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and he has got a land of an extent of 3 grounds adjacent to the tenanted premises and in that building, he is residing with his family members and he intends to demolish his residential portion as well as the tenanted premises and put up a new construction for augmenting his income and he has got means to put up a new construction and therefore, the revision petitioners are liable to be evicted. 3. 3. The tenants/revision petitioners contested the petition stating that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord and with the intention of evicting the tenants, the landlord has demolished the toilet and also attempted to evict the tenants by force and therefore, the tenants filed O.S.Nos.3009 to 3012 of 2002 against the landlord for injunction restraining him from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and those suits were decreed in favour of the tenants and in the year 2002, he filed the application for fixing fair rent and in that application, he has not stated anything about the condition of the building and according to him, the building is structurally sound and having got an unfavourable order from the appellate authority in the matter of fixation of fair rent, the landlord filed revision against the order fixing the fair rent and therefore, with the intention of evicting the tenants, this revision was filed with the mala fide intention. 4. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence adduced before him, held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and he has got means to put up new construction and that is evidenced by the bank statements Exs.P3 to P6 and the landlord has also filed Exs.P7 and P8, the sale deeds in respect of the properties owned by him and his wife which are worth more than Rs.50,00,000/= in the year 2005 and even according to the report of the Engineer filed by the tenants in the fair rent application, the building is in a dilapidated condition and it is 50 years old and the landlord bona fide requires the building for demolition and reconstruction. The learned appellate authority also agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction and against the same, this revision is filed. 5. The learned appellate authority also agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction and against the same, this revision is filed. 5. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord and while filing the fair rent application, the landlord has stated that the building is in a good condition and demanded fair rent and within five years, he filed the petition for demolition and reconstruction only for the purpose of evicting the tenants as the fair rent expected by him was not ordered by the learned appellate authority and the building is in a sound condition and the tenants would be put to severe loss and hardship if they were asked to vacate the premises as they are doing business in the premises and without appreciating all these aspects, both the courts below erred in ordering eviction. He also relied upon the judgment reported in KOLLA RAVINDRA v. SUSHEELA BAI (2007(4) CTC 786), RAJALINGA CHETTIAR AND 2 OTHERS v. NATARAJA MUDALIAR (1995-1-LW 456), PARVATHI v. KALIYAPERUMAL ( (2004) 3 MLJ 111 ) and SABURA BEGUM v. THANGAVELU ( (1997) 1 MLJ 418 in support of his contention. 6. On the other hand, Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent/landlord submitted that the learned Rent Controller, after carefully analysing the oral and documentary evidence and on the basis of the judgments rendered by this court, has rightly held that the landlord has got means to put up new construction and the building also requires demolition and the landlord's requirement is bona fide and ordered eviction and the same was confirmed by the learned appellate authority and therefore, the findings of fact rendered by the courts below cannot be interfered with in the revision. 7. Heard both sides. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord and the landlord has already demolished the toilet and the tenants have filed the suit for injunction and that was decreed and thereafter, the landlord filed application for fair rent and the appellate authority reduced the fair rent ordered by the learned Rent Controller and aggrieved by the same, the petition is filed for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. He further contended that in the application filed under section 4 of the Rent Control Act for fixing the fair rent, the landlord has stated that the building is in a good condition and within five years, he has filed petition stating that the building is in a dilapidated condition and that would prove the mala fide on the part of the landlord and his only aim is to evict the tenants by any method and therefore, the courts below ought not have ordered eviction. 8. As stated supra, in the petition filed by the landlord for eviction, he has stated about the filing of fair rent application by him in the year 2002 and the revision filed by both the parties before the High Court in the matter of fixation of fair rent. Therefore, there is no question of suppression of any fact by the landlord in filing the application. Further, he has stated in evidence that at the time of filing the application for fair rent fixation in the year 2002, he had no intention of demolishing the building as he was not having sufficient funds at that time and later, having acquired funds, he wants to demolish the building and filed the present petition. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that explanation was given by the landlord for filing the application for eviction after the filing of the application for fair rent fixation and that would also prove the bona fide on the part of the landlord. 9. As regards the condition of the building is concerned, the contention of the landlord is that the building is in a dilapidated condition and the superstructure has a leaking roof with lots of structural cracks from the ground to the roof level and the tenants in their counter have stated that the building is structurally sound and there is no seepage of water and no cracks either on the walls or on the roof is noticed. Therefore, to find out the condition of the building, whether the building is in dilapidated condition as claimed by the landlord or the building is in a good condition as contended by the tenants, we will have to look into the report of the Engineer filed by both the parties. Therefore, to find out the condition of the building, whether the building is in dilapidated condition as claimed by the landlord or the building is in a good condition as contended by the tenants, we will have to look into the report of the Engineer filed by both the parties. The tenants have filed the report of the Engineer in the fair rent application and they were marked as Exs.R15 to R18 in the present proceedings. In all the Engineers Report filed by the tenants in the fair rent application, viz., Exs.R15 to R18, the Engineer has stated that the superstructure has a leaking roof with lots of structural cracks from the ground to the roof level and the age of the building is 50 years. Therefore, even as per the document filed by the tenants in the fair rent application, they have admitted that the building is not in a good condition and it has got a leaking roof with lots of structural cracks emanating from the basement to the roof level. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the tenants that the building is in a good condition which does not require demolition. 10. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court has held in many cases that the condition of the building is not the sole factor to decide the bona fide requirement of the landlord and the landlord is entitled to demolish even a building which is structurally sound for the purpose of augmenting his income by putting up multi-storied building. Therefore, the condition of the building cannot be the sole ground to decide the bona fide requirement of the landlord and in this case, as stated supra, the tenants have also admitted that the condition of the building is not good. 11. Further, it is seen from the report of the Engineer filed by the tenants that the building is located in a commercial area and surrounded by hotels, banks, bus terminus, hospitals, schools, cinema theatres, Government offices and educational institutions. The landlord has also filed Exs.P3 to P6, the bank statements to prove his worthiness to construct a new building and it is seen from the bank statements Exs.P3 to P6 that the landlord is having deposit of more than Rs.50,00,000/= in three banks as stated in Exs.P3 to P6. The landlord has also filed Exs.P3 to P6, the bank statements to prove his worthiness to construct a new building and it is seen from the bank statements Exs.P3 to P6 that the landlord is having deposit of more than Rs.50,00,000/= in three banks as stated in Exs.P3 to P6. Further, the landlord has produced the sale deeds in respect of properties owned by him and his wife and the value of the properties in the year 2005 was around Rs.50,00,000/= and all these would prove that the landlord has got the means to construct a new building after demolishing the tenanted premises. Further, the landlord has also stated in the petition that he is the owner of the adjacent land measuring 3 grounds and he is residing there and he wants to demolish that house alongwith the tenanted premises and construct a new structure in his place. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and ordered eviction. 12. Further, the learned Rent Controller relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in VIJAY SINGH ETC. v. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMAL ( 1996 (6) SCC 475 ) in wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:- "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 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 alongwith other factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller." 13. The learned Rent Controller has taken into consideration the factors laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above judgment to arrive at a conclusion and according to me, the learned Rent Controller has rightly applied the law and ordered eviction. The learned Rent Controller has taken into consideration the factors laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above judgment to arrive at a conclusion and according to me, the learned Rent Controller has rightly applied the law and ordered eviction. Further, the learned Rent Controller relied upon the judgments reported in S.BALASUBRAMANIAM v. GULAB JAN ( 1994 LW 102 ) and HARRINGTON HOUSE SCHOOL v. S.M.ISPAHANI & ANOTHER (2002 (2) CTC 549 (SC)) and held that even in the absence of making application before the authorities for demolition and construction of a new building, the court can order eviction when the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. 14. Admittedly, in this case, the landlord has applied for building plan and the same was sanctioned as evidenced by Ex.P14. Further, this court has held in the case of VADAMADURAIPANDIAN v N.SUSILA AMMAL ( 2000(4) CTC 401 ) that while considering the application under section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the court has to consider such intention only with respect to demolition of the building for reconstruction and the past conduct of the landlord prior to the filing of the petition cannot be looked into. Further, in the judgment reported in A.M.STEEL TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS A.M.ISMAIL AND TWO OTHERS v. S.M.M.MOHAMMED FATHIMATHU ZOHRA AND SEVEN OTHERS (1998 (3) LW 704), this court has held that earlier demand of higher rent by the landlord cannot be put against the landlord and when he subsequently filed petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. All these judgments were considered by the learned Rent Controller while ordering eviction. 15. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied upon the judgment reported in 2007 (4) CTC 786 (cited supra) and submitted that filing a second eviction petition on the ground of demolition and reconstruction after the tenant filed petition seeking permission of the court to deposit the rent into the court will prove the mala fide on the part of the landlord. 16. According to me, the facts of that case is entirely different from the facts of this case. 16. According to me, the facts of that case is entirely different from the facts of this case. In the said judgment, the landlord refused to receive rents which forced the tenants to file application to deposit the rents and thereafter, the landlord filed eviction petition on the ground of subletting and acts of waste and damage and those petitions were dismissed and thereafter, the landlord filed application for demolition and reconstruction. In such circumstances, it was held that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord. In the present case, the landlord has given explanation for not filing application for eviction in the year 2002 when he filed application for fair rent and the explanation given by the landlord as stated supra is convincing and that was accepted by the courts below and eviction was ordered. 17. In the judgment reported in (1997) 1 MLJ 418 (cited supra), the learned Judge relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1996 (6) SCC 475 (cited supra) and has laid down the same principles as laid down by the Supreme Court and having regard to the facts of the case, that judgment will not be applicable to the present case. Similarly, the judgment reported in (2004) 3 MLJ 111 , cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as in that case, the approved plan was not filed by the landlord and in that circumstance, the court has held that the requirement is not bona fide. But, in this case, an approved plan has been filed and marked as Ex.P14 and as per the Honourable Supreme Court judgment reported in 2002 (2) CTC 549 (cited supra), even in the absence of getting sanctioned plan, the landlord can prove his bona fide and eviction can be ordered. Similarly, the judgment reported in 1995-1-LW 456 cannot also be applied to the facts of the present case as in that case, having regard to the conduct of the landlord in refusing to receive the rent and keeping quiet for more than three years after the issuance of notice, the court has doubted the bona fide of the landlord. Therefore, in my opinion, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 18. Therefore, in my opinion, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 18. In fine, the learned Rent Controller has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and relied upon the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and our High Court and held that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and ordered eviction and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority and I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. 19. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be given sufficient time for vacating and handing over possession of the property to the landlord as they are doing business and also agreed to file undertaking affidavit to that effect. 20. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent opposed the grant of time, considering the fact that the tenants are doing business and they will have to find out alternate accommodation, in my opinion, time can be granted till 31.12.2012. Hence, time is granted till 31.12.2012 to vacate the premises on condition of filing an undertaking affidavit by all the revision petitioners undertaking to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises on or before 31.12.2012 and the said undertaking shall be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, the tenants/revision petitioners shall also continue to pay the fair rent fixed by the rent control appellate authority till they vacate and hand over vacant possession. If the tenants commit default in any of the conditions, it is open for the first respondent/landlord to execute the order of eviction. No costs.