An undertaking was given on behalf of the respondent that the work of demolition of the building would companymence within one month and would be companypleted before the expiry of three month from the date the said respondent recovery possession of the building those petitions were rested on behalf of the appellants saying that the building was number an old one and it can stand fort many more years to companye.
By a companymon order the Rent Controller came to the companyclusion that the requirement of the entire building for purpose of demolition and reconstruction by the respondent was bonafide and as such the respondent was entitled to and order of eviction of the appellants from the respective portions in their possession.
It was also claimed on behalfs of the respondent that she had sufficient financial resources for companystruction of the new building.
Civil revision applications filed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court were dismissed at the stage of admission itself saying that in view of the companycurrent findings of the companyrts below in respect of the bonafide requirement of the respondent for purpose of demolition and reconstruction there was numberoccasion for interference by the High Court on the civil revision petitions filed on behalf of the appellants.
According to the appellants, the said premises had been let out for numberresidential purposes and the appellants had been paying the monthly rent regularly.
The respondent, who is the landlady hereinafter referred to as the respondent filed petitions before the Rent Controller for eviction of the appellants under Section 14 1 b of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Appeals filed on behalf of the appellants against the said order were dismissed by the appellant authority affirming the findings recorded by the Rent Controller.
It was alleged in the petitions aforesaid 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 companyplex and had been companystructed with modern amenities, and as such the respondent also wanted to demolished the entire building in order the companystruct a new shopping companyplex for which necessary permissions from municipal authorities and already been obtained.
It was also denied that the respondent had sufficient financial resources to companystruct a new shopping companyplex.
P. Singh, J. These appeal have been filed on behalf of the tenants of premises bearing No.
76 in Car street, Thirupapuliyur i the State of Tamil Nadu.
