- (1.)THE civil revision petitioner before this Court is a tenant in respect of the premises bearing door No 9 in Ellaiyamman West St., Thiruvarur. THE landlady, the petitioner in R. C. O. P. 26 of 1977, who is the respondent herein, filed the petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground that she required the premises for demolition and reconstruction. In support of her case she has produced the licence given by the Municipal authorities for the demolition and reconstruction of both the premises, viz., door Nos. 9 and 9-A, which is marked as Exhibit A-4. Exhibit A-3 is the blue print plan showing the proposed reconstruction of the petition-mentioned premises. Exhibit A-5 is the miscellaneous receipt evidencing the payment of licence fee in respect of Exhibit A-4 to the Thiruvarur Municipality. Apart from producing the licence given by the municipal authorities for the reconstruction of the premises in question, the landlady-s father was examined as P. W. No. 1, before the Rent Controller to prove the bona fide requirement of the landlady. P. W. No.1 in his evidence had stated that the landlady is in possession of sufficient funds for the demolition and reconstruction work, that she has got a fixed deposit with Indian Overseas Bank, and that she had also obtained the permission from the Municipal Council for demolition and reconstruction of the petition-mentioned building.
(2.)THE tenant in his counter-statement merely stated that the requirement of the landlady is not bona fide, that the landlady already obtained possession of the other half of the premises, bearing door No. 9-A on the ground that she required it for her own occupation and that she had let out the same to one Shanmugham. From these averments the tenant wanted to infer that the landlady-s claim for eviction for demolition and reconstruction is not a bona fide one.
The learned Rent Controller found that the claim of the landlady is not bona fide and dismissed the petition while the Appellate Authority disagreed with the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal and found that the landlady-s claim for eviction, on the ground that she required it for demolition and reconstruction, is bona fide. It is as against the judgment of the appellate authority this civil revision petition is filed.

(3.)IN this revision, Mr. G. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two contentions, in support of his argument that the decision of the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. The first of the contentions raised is that there is no finding by the appellate court that the premises in question is an old one and requires demolition and reconstruction. Another contention put forth by the learned counsel is that the lower appellate Court ought to have come to the conclusion that the claim of the landlady is not bona fide since she had not taken possession of the other half of the premises bearing door No. 9-A.