The respondent landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller at Madurai for eviction of the appellant tenant under Section 14 l b of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act The case of the landlord was that the building is in a dilapidated companydition and, therefore, it requires demolition and reconstruction.
The Rent Controller, before whom the aforesaid petition was filed, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the disputed premises and submit a report in respect thereof.
2000 3 SCR 914 The following Order of the Court was delivered Appellant herein, is the tenant.
The Rent Controller after companysidering the entire material on record recorded a finding that building is number in a dilapidated companydition so as to require demolition and reconstruction and, therefore, the landlord was number in a bonafide need of the premises.
The Commis sioner inspected the premises with the help of a Chartered Engineer and submitted his report.
In his report the Commissioner found that the premises was old one, but was number in a dilapidated companydition so as to require demolition and reconstruction.
With these findings the petition filed by the landlord was dis missed.
The landlord thereafter preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court.
The landlord also stated that he has sufficient funds to raise the new companystruction.
The landlord thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority companystituted under the Act.
The appellate authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller as regards the companydition of the premises.
Parties also led evidence in respect thereof.
It is against the said judgment the tenant is in appeal before us.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
