JUDGMENT 1. Heard both the sides. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The respondent/landlady filed RCOP seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction of the building which is around 60 years' old. The petitioner / tenant resisted the same. Up went the enquiry, during which on the landlady's side, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. On the side of the tenant, one Krishnan was examined as R.W.1 and documents Exs.R1 to R5 were marked. Court documents were also marked as Exs.C1 to C3. 2. Ultimately the Rent Controller ordered eviction as against which an appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Challenging and impugning the orders of both the fora below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision would pyramid his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The building is not in a dilapidated condition and the Commissioner's Report did not reveal any such thing. The requirement of the building by the landlady for reconstruction and construction is not a bona fide one. The financial capacity of the landlady is not sound. A fair rent petition was also filed by the landlady and in that, the landlady claimed Rs.10,000/- per month as fair rent which would show that the building is in a good condition. Hence, the counsel would pray for setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below. 4. Whereas, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent would put forth his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: The building is around 60 years' old and the landlady wants to demolish it and reconstruct a new one there. The law has got well settled that even a building which is not down at heels could be demolished by the landlord for the purpose of augmenting his income. The law has got well settled that even a building which is not down at heels could be demolished by the landlord for the purpose of augmenting his income. With regard to the financial wherewithal is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has pointed out that banks are liberal in lending loans for such purpose and in such a case, the question of lack of finance would not arise at all. This RCOP cannot be linked with the RCOP relating to fixation of fair rent as that has to be dealt with separately. The bona fides of the landlady cannot be doubted. 5. The landlady raised a plea before the appellate Authority for the first time a ground that the tenant was occupying the first floor whereas in the ground floor, the landlady, after making certain alterations, leased out the same to two tenants for rent and in such a case, it cannot be presumed that the building was in a bad condition. 6. Whereas, the learned counsel for the landlady would submit that for the first time such a plea before the appellate Authority should not have been raised, which is antithetical to the well established law of pleading. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by both the fora below in ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. 8. At the outset, I would like to fumigate my mind with the decisions governing the ground relating to demolition and reconstruction as under: (i) HarringtonHouse Schoolv. S.M.Ispahani and anotherreported in (2002) 3 M.L.J. 130 (S.C). (ii) S.Venugopalv. A.Karruppusami and another reported in 2006(2) CTC 615. 9. A mere running of the eye over the above precedents would amply make the point clear that it is for the landlady to take a decision as to whether the building has to be demolished or not and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms. I recollect the following maxim: “Rerumsuarum quilibet est moderator et arbiter.” [Every one is the manager and disposer of his own matters.] Here in this case, the tenant could not even deny the fact that the building is around 60 years' old. I recollect the following maxim: “Rerumsuarum quilibet est moderator et arbiter.” [Every one is the manager and disposer of his own matters.] Here in this case, the tenant could not even deny the fact that the building is around 60 years' old. In such a case, I am at a loss to understand and there is no knowing of the fact as to how the landlady's bona fides for demolishing the 60 year's old building could be doubted. A new ground that two tenants started occupying the ground floor, cannot be raised for the first time either in the appeal or in the revision. Regarding the financial wherewithal of the landlady, the Rent Controller also in his judgment, referred to the fact as put forth by the landlady that she was having other properties in that area and that she was having enough funds for reconstruction, which fact was not challenged by the tenant. The law has got settled that nowadays, a landlady can very well raise money by availing loan from the Banks for raising construction. Regarding the approved plan is concerned, at the time of obtaining delivery by filing E.P., the landlady has to produce the approved plan of the new building, which will be looked after by the Executing Court promptly. The Rent Controller adverted to the fact that other tenants in the same building were being evicted. The fact also remains that the landlady took steps to evict other tenants in the same building. Hence, I see no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by both the for a below. As such, there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 10. On hearing the pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would make an extempore submission that six months' time might be granted for the tenant to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises concerned in favour of the landlady. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the landlady would raise objection for such granting of time. On hearing the pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would make an extempore submission that six months' time might be granted for the tenant to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises concerned in favour of the landlady. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the landlady would raise objection for such granting of time. By way of striking a balance between the two, three months' time from today is granted for the tenant to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the demised premises to the landlady, subject to the tenant giving an undertaking that he would regularly pay the rents and he would also hand over the possession of the premises concerned to the landlady peacefully on expiry of the said period of six months. An affidavit shall be filed in this Court by the tenant within a period of fifteen days from today, to that effect.