ORDER
Devinder Gupta, J.
1. The three revision petitions, though arising out of separate orders passed by appellate authority(I), Shimla and also arising out of separate eviction proceedings can conveniently be disposed of by a common order, since questions of law and fact arising are almost same and similar.
2. Civil Revision 65 of 1992. This civil revision has arisen out of eviction petition preferred by late Darshan Singh Kochhar, who is now represented by his son Satwant Singh Kochhar, in which eviction of the Girls Industrial Training School, located in a part of the Willow Bank building. The Mall, Shimla was sought. The ground for eviction as made out in the petition was that the entire building has become very old. It has outlived its utility and life. The premises in question as well as the other portion of the building Willow Bank in occupation of the other tenants are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building, which building and re-building cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenant. It was alleged that the proceedings for eviction against the other tenants were also being initiated. The building, after demolition has to be rebuilt afresh. The walls of the building are tilting, flooring is sagging at places and Dhajji construction has become rotten.
3. In reply filed by the tenant, namely, The Girls Industrial Training Institute, Shim-la, the claim of the landlord was disputed. It was alleged that the premises occupied by the Institute were in perfectly good condition and were fit for human habitation. No certificate that the building had become very old and was not fit for human inhabitation has been placed on record. As such, there was no force in the ground for eviction taken up by the landlord.
4. The parties were taken to trial and Rent Controller (III), Shimla, vide order passed on 23rd Ocotober, 1989, upheld the ground of eviction by recording finding that the premises were required by the landlord bona fide for the purpose of re-building. The Controller held that the entire building in question was in a dilapidated condition and had outlived its utility. The landlord was possessed of sufficient funds and had taken steps for getting the plans approved. The rebuilding was not possible without the premises being vacated. The tenant was ordered to be evicted on this ground. One month's time was allowed to the tenant to vacate the premises.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal. Appellate authority(I), Shimla concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and dismissed the tenant's appeal. It held that there was ample evidence on record in support of the landlord's plea that the premises were bona fide required for the purpose of re-building. It is this order of the appellate authority (1), which is under challenge in this civil revision, by which the tenant was allowed three months time to vacate the premises.
6. Civil Revision 86 of 1992. In this case, eviction of the Divisional Forest Officer (Publicity) from the premises in his occupation in the ground floor and basement of Willow Bank building, the Mall, Shimla, along with two quarters in the estate was sought by the landlord, namely, late Darshan Singh Kochhar, who is now represented by his son Satwant Singh Kochhar. In addition to the other grounds for eviction, one of the ground, seeking tenant's eviction was the bona fide requirement of the premises in occupation of the tenant, for the purpose of building and re-building, which building or re-building was not possible without the tenant vacating the premises. It was alleged that the building had become very old and required to be re-built afresh. Its life had finished. It was sagging at places. Walls and floor had started tilting at many places. Steps were being taken for seeking eviction of the other occupants of the building.
7. The tenant contested the petition by filing a reply. It was alleged that the building was fit for human inhabitation and the eviction was sought merely with a motive to get the premises vacated; otherwise the building had not outlived its life. No documents had been placed on record to show that the same is dangerous to the lives of the occupants and their personal life.
8. Rent Controller (III), Shimla, vide order dated 23rd October, 1989, upheld the ground of eviction set up by the landlord and ordered tenant's eviction. One month time was allowed to vacate the premises. The findings recorded in this case by the Rent Controller were the same and similar as those recorded in the case giving rise to civil revision No. 65 of 1992. The appeal carried by the tenant against this order of eviction was dismissed by the appellate authority(I), Shimla on 1st November, 1991. It was held that the building in question in which the premises were located had outlived its life due to which it required immediate demolition so as to reconstruct the building according to the interest, resources and financial capacity of the owner-landlord. The appellate authority concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide, since it was duly proved on record that he was possessed of sufficient funds and further that steps had been taken not only to get the other occupants evicted but also for getting the plans prepared and sanctioned. Two months time was allowed to the tenant to vacate the premises. It is this order of eviction, which is under challenge in this civil revision before this court.
9. Civil Revision 241 of 1992. Eviction of Divisional Forest Officer, Shimla Division, Shimla, has been sought in this case by the landlord respondents, namely, two sons of Satwant Singh Kochhar and Smt. Balbir Kochhar, his wife, from the top most flat of the building known as 'Craige Villa', The Mall, Shimla. In addition to the other grounds mentioned in the petition, one of the grounds seeking eviction is that the entire 'Craige Villa' is to be dismantled and reconstructed. The premises in occupation of the tenant are thus required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of re-building after demolition, which rebuilding was not possible without the tenant vacating the same. It was alleged that the building known as 'Craige Villad' is very old and has outlived its life and required to be made new for being made habitable and to avoid danger to the lives of the persons residing therein. The Municipal Corporation, Shimla, had also issued notices to the occupants of the building informing that the whole building had become dangerous. It was alleged in the petition that steps were being taken for seeking eviction of the other occupants of the building.
10. In reply, filed by the tenant, it was pleaded that there was no force in the ground of eviction. There was no bona fide requirement to dismantle the premises and that it was only a pretext to get the premises vacated. The notices served by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla was stated to be wholly misconceived. Neither the building had become dangerous to the lives of the persons residing therein nor the same had outlived its utility.
11. The Rent Controller(IV), Shimla on 30th July, 1988, allowed the landlord's petition and ordered the tenants eviction by giving three months time to vacate the premises and put landlord in peaceful occupation thereof. It was held that the building was in a precarious condition, including the premises in occupation of the tenant. The building had not only outlived its life and utility but was also in such a condition that it required to be dismantled with a view to reconstruct the same. It was found that the landlord had taken steps in getting the plans for redevelopment prepared along with the other members of their family for developing the building known as Willow Bank estate along with 'Craige Villa' estate. It was also held that the owners possessed sufficient funds and that the rebuilding was not possible without the tenant vacating the premises. This order of eviction on being challenged by the tenant was upheld by the appellate authority (1) Shimla on 16th June, 1992 when the tenant's appeal was dismissed and 60 days time was allowed to vacate the premises. The appellate authority found that the building was more than 100 years old, which had been rendered precarious and dangerous for human habitation. It was also found that the evidence led by the landlord that they had also sufficient funds and had made plans to rebuild the same had remained unrebutted. Consequently, the landlord's requirement was held to be bona fide one.
12. I have heard Mr. G. D. Verma, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. D. Sood, appearing for the respondent(s) in all the cases. As noticed above, the eviction was sought from the premises located in Willow Bank, Shimla, in two cases, namely, Civil Revision 65 of 1992 and Civil Revision No. 86 of 1992 by late Shri Darshan Singh Kochhar, who is now represented by his son Satwant Singh Kochhar and eviction in the third case was sought by the wife and two sons of Satwant Singh Kochhar from the premises located in the 'Craige Villa'. As will be noticed shortly, there is evidence on record that one single development plan was got prepared for the redevelopment of two estates known as 'Willow Bank' and 'Craige Villa' by the Kochhar family and for this reason also, the three petitions are being dealt with and disposed of by a common judgment.
13. In all the cases, proceedings for eviction were initiated when Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, was in operation, which has since been repealed and substituted by the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be called as '1971 Act' and 'the Act', respectively). The ground of eviction under consideration was available to the landlord under 1971 Act and is also available under the Act. Section 14 of the Act deals with the eviction of tenant. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 says :--
'(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession--
(a) xx xx xx xx
(b) xx xx xx xx
(c) in the case of any building or rented land if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bona fide by him for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being 'vacated or that the building or rented land is required bona fide by him for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated;
(d) xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx'
14. Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act, as quoted above, enumerates four separate and distinct grounds enabling the landlord to seek tenant's eviction, which are equally applicable to any building or rented land whether that building is residential or non-residential, and may be put under different headings as under:
(a) to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme;
(b) if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation;
(c) is required bona fide by landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated; and
(d) that the building or rented land is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated.
The ground of building having become unsafe or unfit for human habitation is totally separate and distinct ground than the ground, namely, bona fide requirement by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or additions or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. For each separate ground, type of evidence required will be entirely different and while ordering eviction different circumstances have to be taken note of. Reading of the aforementioned provisions of law and the ground of eviction, as alleged, in all the cases, learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly conceded and rightly so, that the eviction of the tenant was sought in each case not on the ground of the buildings having become unsafe or unfit for human habitation but on the ground of the landlord requiring the premises bona fide for the purpose of building or re-building, which building or re-building cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenant.
15. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act empowers the Rent Controller to order tenant's eviction in case he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that there is no provision in the Act which might enable the tenant to seek re-induction on re-building of the property by the landlord, after the tenant is ordered to be evicted from the premises on the aforementioned ground, though in some of the statutes, where similar ground of eviction is available to the landlords seeking tenants eviction, there is a right vested in the tenant for getting himself re-inducted in similar accommodation on re-building.
16. In number of judgments, the Supreme Court has interpreted similar clause appearing in various Acts and stated the relevant considerations which must be borne in mind by the Controller in order to satisfy himself about the bona fides of the claim.
17. In Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal, AIR 1963 SC 499, wherein eviction of the tenant had been sought under the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, the court held that the Controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim of the landlord. To reach this conclusion, obviously, the Controller must be satisfied about the reality of the claim made by the landlord, which can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord, it was held that the Act speaks out of the bona fides of the landlord, but says, on the other hand, that the claim of the landlord that he requires the building for reconstruction and re-erection must be bona fide, that is to say, honest in the circumstances.
18. In Panchmal Narayan Shenoy v. Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy, AIR 1971 SC 942, provisions of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, came up for consideration, wherein Clause (j) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 enabled the landlord to seek tenant's eviction on the ground that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building in place of the premises sought to be demolished. It was held that the requirement contemplated under Clause (j) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 was that of the landlord and it does not have any reference to the condition of the building, as such. What was necessary under the clause is that the landlord must satisfy the court that he reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and erecting a new building in the place of the old one. Whether the landlord's requirement is reasonable and bona fide has to be judged by the surrounding circumstances, which would include his means for re-construction of the building and the other steps taken by him in that regard. In considering the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord, the desire of the landlord to put the property to a more profitable use, after demolition or re-construction is also a factor that may be taken into account in favour of the landlord. In this decision, the observation made to the effect that 'it is not necessary that the landlord should go further and establish under this clause that the condition of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition' were explained by the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision in Metalware and Company v. Bansilal Sarma (1979) 3 SCC 398 : (AIR 1979 SC 1559) by saying that these observations made in Panchamal's case (supra) should be read in the context of the scheme of the Mysore Rent Control Act only.
19. In Metalware's case (supra), the ground for eviction as contained in sub-clause (b) of Section 14(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, came up for interpretation, which provides for the tenant's eviction where the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. Explaining and approving the earlier two decisions in Neta Ram's (AIR 1963 SC 499) and Panchamal's cases (AIR 1971 SC 942) (supra), the court in Metalware's case (AIR 1979 SC 1559 at p. 1563) (supra) held as under:
'........ that the age and existing condition of the building -- whether it is a recent construction or very old and whether it is in a good and sound condition or has become decrepit or dilapidated -- are relevant factors forming part of 'all the circumstances' that have to be considered while determining the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and in the totality of the circumstances these factors may assume lesser or greater significance depending upon whether in the scheme of the concerned enactment there is or there is not a provision for re-induction of the evicted tenant into the new construction. Such a view would be in accord with the main objective of the benign legislation enacted with the avowed intention of giving protection to the tenant.'
20. The same provision of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, came up for consideration in a later judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Orr & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. (1990) 2 Ren CR 648. After considering the scheme of the Act and the aforementioned three decisions and number of other decisions of the Madras High Court, the Court held that ground of eviction in the Tamil Nadu Act is available only if the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the 'immediate', i.e., direct, sole and timely purpose of demolishing it with a view to erecting a new building on the site of the existing building. The court noticed the circumstances which can be termed as relevant circumstances to be taken note by the Controller in order to judge that the requirement was bona fide and observed that:
'............. Various circumstances such as the capacity of the landlord, the size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authority in considering an application for recovery; but the essential and overriding consideration which, in the general interests of the public and for the protection of the tenants from unreasonable eviction, the legislature has in mind is the condition of the building that demands timely demolition by reason of the extent of damage to its structure making it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs. While the condition of the building by itself may not necessarily establish the bona fide requirement under Clause (b), that condition is not only one of the various circumstances which may be taken into account by the Controller, but it is the essential condition in the absence of which it would not be possible for the landlord to prove that he has a bona fide requirement which is timely, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building. The Act does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant circumstances, requires demolition. These are matters which are to be proved by evidence.'
The court further observed that in order to satisfy the test as laid down in Clause (b) of Section 14(1) of the Act, the condition of the building need not have deteriorated to the extent of the building being in danger of crumbling down, but the condition must be such as to indicate a bona fide requirement for the timely, genuine and direct purpose of demolition and re-construction.
21. A learned single Judge of this Court in Madhava Nand v. Nand Lal, AIR 1987 Him Pra 89, while considering the ground of bona fide requirement seeking tenant's eviction for the purpose of re-building under Clause (iii) of Section 14(3)(a) of 1971 Act held that all the surrounding circumstances, such as, age and existing condition of the building, its situation and the possibility of its being put to more profitable use, after re-construction, the means of the landlord and other similar circumstances have to be considered.
22. In the light of the aforementioned legal position, both the authorises below in all these cases concurrently found that the buildings are pretty old and have outlived their life and utility. The landlords have made plans for development of the same for which purpose they were possessed of sufficient funds. The buildings were located on the Mall, where several new constructions are coming up in the vicinity. The reconstruction was not possible without the tenants vacating the premises.
23. Mr. Verma has tried to challenge the findings recorded by the authorities below that the evidence was not sufficient and there was no material on record justifying the conclusion that steps had been taken to seek eviction of other tenants, plans had been got prepared or approved or that the landlords were possessed of sufficient funds. He has taken me through the entire evidence. Almost same and similar evidence has been adduced in the two cases pertaining to the premises located in the Willow Bank estate Shimla and slightly different evidence has been adduced in the third case relating to the premises located in Craige Villa. Firstly, I will deal with the evidence adduced in the eviction petitions, out of which Civil revisions 65 and 86 have arisen, because in both the cases the evidence is similar.
24. Mr. S. P. Kapur, a Graduate in Engineering a Fellow of Institute of Engineers (India), having served in the Public Works Department of Punjab and Himachal Pra-desh for thirty-three years and retired as Superintending Engineer in 1978 from Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, was examined by the landlord, who stated that he on instructions received from Satwant Singh Kochhar carried out the inspection of the Willow Bank estate, The Mall, Shimla. In his opinion, the age of the building is about 150 years but as per the record, it is stated that the building was about 100 years of age. He stated that from his experience he was in a position to state that it was 150 years of age. He also proved his inspection report. The wood work is decayed due to which dhajji walls have tilted and are out of plumb. Portion of the roofs in the entire building had sagged. CGI sheets have badly rusted and holes have appeared in them and there are heavy leakages. The floors have settled and their level is lower on western side, that is, valley side. According to him the building had no economic utility in its present state.
25. Mr. C. L. Gupta, was also examined as one of the witnesses, who is a qualified Architect practising at Shimla for the last about 17 years. He stated that he had prepared the re-development plan, which was for the entire Willow Bank and Craige villa complex. He proved the plans Ex. PW 2/A to Ex. PW 2/F. According to his assessment, the cost of re-construction of the entire complex would be approximately to the tune of Rs. 3 crores. The complex would comprise of hotel and commercial shops. Even according to him both, 'Willow Bank estate' and 'Craige Villa, the estate' were in dilapidated condition, having no economic utility.
26. Sarvjeet Singh Kochhar son of Satwant Singh Kochhar, appeared as PW 4 and stated that Darshan Singh was his grandfather. After narrating the particulars of the other members of his family, he stated that the family was a joint family and had its joint business. Willow Bank is a compact unit on the Mall, which housed number of tenants, against whom eviction proceedings had been taken out. The landlord had intention to reconstruct the entire estate, plans of which had duly been prepared and got submitted to the Municipal Corporation. He stated that the family possessed adequate funds for the re-construction of the building. He produced on record certified copies of National Savings Certificates, Exs. PW-4/A to PW 4/L of the value of over Rs. 5,00,000/-. He also produced on record various post office deposits Exs. PW4/R to Ex. PW4/Z and Ex. PW4/A/1 of the value of Rs. 1,80,000/-. It, was stated by him that Public Provident Fund Account of the family members was over Rs. 5,50,000/-. There were other fixed deposit receipts in various banks. Certificates Ex. PW-4/ M to Ex. PW 4/N were proved by him. As per certificate Ex. PW4/N issued by Union Bank of India, New Delhi, M/s. Kochhar Construction Works (family concern of the landlord) was maintaining their current accounts with the bank, wherein the extent of limit is shown as about Rs. 15,00,000/ -. Certificate Ex. PW 4/ M also is issued by the same bank certifying that M/s. Kochhar Construction Works was having various SOD limits enjoyed by them to the tune of more than Rs. 15,00,000/-. Certificate Ex. PW4/O from the Bank of America, New Delhi Branch has also been proved by this witness to the effect that M/s. Kochhar Construction Works, New Delhi was a firm of repute having good credit standing in the market. The bank certified the credit worthiness of the concern to the tune of Rs. 10 crores. Similar certificate produced are Exs. P W 4/N and PW 4/Q. In addition to this witness, other oral and documentary evidence has also been adduced on record but the same need not be referred being not very much relevant on the point. The landlord also placed reliance upon the notice Ex. PW 5/A issued by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, about the dilapidated condition of the building.
27. On behalf of the tenants, reliance has been placed upon the statements of Naresh Sharma, Accountant, Forest Division, Shimla, RW1, Bishan Singh Chowkidar, RW2, N. M. Ramaul, RW3, Principal ITI, Shimla, D. P. Sinha, D. F. O., RW4, and B. R. Kalta, Junior Engineer, RW 5.
28. Effort was made to point out by making reference to the statements of Naresh Sharma and Bishan Singh RWs 1 and 2, respectively, that Mr. S. P. Kapur never inspected the premises in question. The evidence is of a negative type that Mr. S. P. Kapur in their presence never paid a visit to the building. This evidence has been discarded by the authorities below. Their statements otherwise also cannot be believed in view of the statement of Mr. S. P. Kapur, who denied that the inspection was not carried out by actually entering the premises in occupation of the tenants. In his statement he gave vivid description and the details of the accommodation in occupation of the tenant and also of the nature of the activities being conducted by the tenants in the premises. This un-corroborative evidence adduced on behalf of the tenants, otherwise will be of no relevance, since ample opportunity was available to the tenants to rebut the evidence adduced by the landlord concerning the nature and condition of the building, which the tenants miserably failed. In fact, the tenants have been harping only on one aspect that the premises have not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, which would not be a factor relevant for consideration, since the ground of eviction is totally a different one, where different other considerations prevail.
29. Mr. Gurpal Singh, Surveyor, Institute of I.T.I. Shimla and B. R. Kalta have tried to depose about the condition of the building by saying that it is in safe condition. Both of them have stated that they have not inspected the building from outside and are not clear in their version about the age and life of the building. The landlord has, in fact, led positive evidence in this behalf by producing on record a copy of the sale-deed of the year 1876 (Ex. PW3/A) of the property in question and a copy of the resolution of the Simla Municipality dated 6th May, 1878, by which the permission was not accorded to the owner of the estate to construct servant quarters attached to the main building on the plea that the estate was sufficiently built up already. This positive evidence adduced by the landlord that the building was in existence at least in the year 1878 will lend support to the version of Mr. S. P. Kapur that as per his opinion the building is about 150 years of age or in any case it is more than 100 years and taking into consideration the decayed wood work, rusted tin sheets etc., it has outlived its life as also its utility.
30. Reference may now be made to the evidence adduced in the other case giving rise to Civil Revision No. 241 of 1992. The Craige Villa estate is located in the close proximity of the Willow Bank estate. Both are separated by another property. As per the version of the landlord, which is supported by Architect Mr. C. L. Gupta, that a joint plan for redevelopment has been prepared for both the properties and ultimately one complex is likely to come up, as is proposed by the landlord. The landlord placed reliance upon the statement of PW 1 Satwant Singh Kochhar, who deposed about the old and dilapidated nature of the building and also of the fact that sufficient funds were possessed by the owners. Reliance has also been placed upon the correspondence originating from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, about the dangerous and dilapidated condition of the building, which is proved on record by PW 2, Datt Ram, Junior Engineer. P. W. 4 is Mr. S. B. Bhandari, one of the tenants in the building. P.W. 6 is Mrs. Pratima Malhotra, advocate, another tenant in the building. These two tenants have proved that back walls of the building had come down during rainy season. Mr. C. L. Gupta, Architect, has been examined and proved redevelopment plan of 'Craige Villa', as well as of the Willow Bank estate. Mr. S. P. Kapur appeared as PW 8 and proved his inspection report about the condition of the building.
31. The tenant relied upon the statement of Mr. O. P. Singh, who had been working as Executive Engineer, since 1985. According to him, the building was in a good condition and fit for habitation. During cross-examination he admitted that 'Craige Villa' was a compact building and if it is to be rebuilt, the same has to be rebuilt as a compact building. According to him the age of the building was more than 100 years and was built partly in Dhajji and partly in stone masonry. No effort was made by this witness to examine the Dhajji and masonry work of the building. The other witness is Narinder Kumar Sharma RW 2. He stated that a notice was received from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, in which Divisional Forest Officer was informed that the condition of the building was precarious, which notice was duly replied and it was stated that there was no damage to the building except to the retaining wall on the front towards Mall Road, which had resulted due to seepage of water and construction of heavy building behind the building in question. He also admitted that the lives of the inmates residing in the building were endangered when the retaining wall had fallen.
32. On the basis of the aforementioned evidence, both the authorities below recorded their findings. Concurrent findings have been recorded by both the authorities below on the relevant considerations regarding the age and condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of the buildings being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction and the means of the landlord. These findings are supportable on the basis of the evidence on record. As such, concurrent findings recorded by the two authorities below, which are based upon relevant material on record, cannot be reversed by this Court while hearing revision under the provisions of the Act. In Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 270 : (AIR 1991 SC 455), wherein the Rent Controller and the appellate authority had recorded concurrent findings and the learned single Judge of this court, while hearing the revision under the provisions of 1971 Act reversed those findings by taking a different view on the evidence, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in interfering with the findings of fact on reappraisal of the evidence. Interference with the findings of fact is only justified if the same is perverse or if there was non-appreciation or non-consideration of the material evidence on record.
33. In K.A. Anthappai v. C. Ahammed (1992) 3 SCC 277 : (AIR 1992 SC 1696), considering the scope of High Court's powers of revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, provisions of which are pari materia to those of Section 24(5) of the Act, the Supreme Court held that findings of fact of subordinate authority based on evidence are not open to interference by the High Court in revision, merely because it does not agree with it. In Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana (1993) 1 SCC 499: (AIR 1993 SC 1616), the Supreme Court again considering the scope of revisional power under Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act, held that power of revision is conferred only to call for and examine the records relating to any order for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity and propriety of such order. Approving the ratio of the judgments in Raman and Raman Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1956 SC 463, H.V. Mathai v. Subordinate Judge, Kottayam (1969) 2 SCC 194: (AIR 1970 SC 337), Rajbir Kaur (Smt) v. S. Chokesiri and Co. (1989) 1 SCC 19 : (AIR 1988 SC 1845) and Rai Chand Jain v. Chandra Kanta Khosla (1991) 1 SCC 422 : (AIR 1991 SC 744), it was held that even the wider language used in Section 20 of the Kerala Rent Control Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal and the High Court will not be justified in reappreciating the entire evidence both oral and documentary.
34. In Shiv Lal v. Sat Parkash, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 345: (AIR 1993 SC 275), Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was construed and the Supreme Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the said Act, the High Court does not act as a regular third appellate court and can interfere only within the scope of the sub-section, namely, in case the impugned order is perverse or is not supportable on the evidence on record.
35. Having examined the evidence on record and considering the impugned orders, I do not find any ground to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the two authorities below. In order to seek eviction of a tenant under the provisions of the Act on the ground of the landlord requiring the premises bona fide for the purposes of building or rebuilding or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations contained in Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act, the Controller under Sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act, has to record a finding that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. In order to reach this conclusion obviously, the Controller must be satisfied about the reality of the claim made by the landlord, which can only be established by looking at the surrounding circumstances, namely, the condition of the building, its location, possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after re-building or reconstruction, the means of the landlord, steps, if any, taken by the landlord for putting his plans into action etc. While considering the factor of the condition of the building, the Act nowhere says that the building must be in such a condition that the same requires immediate demolition. It will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. In case the building has become pretty old and in the present state has outlived its utility and the landlord intends to rebuild a new structure, will also be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. The building to be demolished for the purpose of re-construction or for carrying out substantial additions or alterations should not be a recent construction, since in that case the desire of the landlord to put the property to a more profitable use by intending to demolish or re-construct the building may not fall within the ambit of his claim being bona fide. Both the authorities below have considered all these relevant factors into consideration in coming to their conclusion that the premises are required bona fide for the purpose of re-building and that re-building is not possible without the tenant vacating the same.
36. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while ordering the tenant's eviction, a provision ought to have been made for re-induction of the tenant, cannot be accepted since there is nothing in the Act which authorises the tenant to claim induction in the premises to be rebuilt. Non-existence of such a provision in the Act cannot be said to be unequitable. In Prabhakaran Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1987 SC 2117, the Supreme Court while upholding the provisions of the T. N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1960, observed that absence of provisions for re-induction of the evicted tenant, after reconstruction, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution merely because in the said statute there exists a provision for re-induction of a tenant after repairs to the building. The classification was held to be reasonable and rational.
37. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that a longer time than the one provided for in the Act be given to the tenant to vacate the premises. I am afraid that this submission also cannot be accepted, since the proviso to Sub-clause (4) of Section 14 of the Act enables the Controller to give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or the rented land but not exceeding three months in aggregate. The petitioners have also not come forward in giving an unconditional undertaking to vacate the premises and deliver peaceful possession to the landlord on allowing some reasonable lime. Though in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, one and a half years lime would have been a reasonable one for the vacation of the premises by the petitioners, but in view of the clear provision that not more than three months time can be allowed to the tenant to vacate the premises, the prayer made cannot be accepted.
38. Consequently, the revision petitions, which have no force, are dismissed. Three months time from today is allowed to the petitioners to vacate the premises and put the landlord-respondents in peaceful vacant possession of the respective premises.
39. Costs on parties.