ORDER
Somasundaram, J.
1. The Respondents 1, 2 and 4 in RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tindivanam, who failed before both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The Landlord filed RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tindivanam, against the petitioners herein and others for eviction under Sections 10(2)(ii)(b) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the case of the landlord in RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 is as follows;- The petition mentioned premises consisting of two items belongs to the respondent herein and it was leased out to one Ravanappa Naidu, 40 years prior to the filing of the RCOP. The said tenant, Ravanappa Naidu, died 15 years prior to the filing of the petition and after his death, the respondents 1 to 4 in the RCOP., who are the heirs of Ravanappa Naidu continued as tenants of the deceased Ellusami Chettiar, the landlord, in respect of the demised premises. The monthly rent for both the portions of the building is Rs.12/-. Both the items of the demised premises constitute one building having two door numbers. Both the portions are thatched houses and they are very old. The landlord requires the building’ for demolition of the thatched houses and for reconstruction. The landlord has obtained the necessary sanction from the Municipality for reconstructing the building after demolishing the thatched’ portions. The landlord’s requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. The first respondent in the RCOP. resisted the application for eviction contending as follows: Both the portions having two door numbers and in good condition. The landlord’s requirement for demolition and reconstruction is not bona fide.
2. The Rent Controller, after considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, found that the landlord’s requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide and consequently allowed RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 and ordered eviction. As against the order of eviction, passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioners herein along with the third respondent herein filed an appeal, RCA. No. 31 of 1975 before the Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Tindivanam). The Appellate Authority by its order dated 30-4-1987 confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the RCA.
3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Authorities below, the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in RCOP. No. 1 of 1981 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for the petitioners raised three contentions in the Civil Revision Petition. In the first place, the learned Counsel contended that Section 14(2)(b) of Act 18 of 1960 says that no order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act shall be passed unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion of the building shall be substantially commenced by him not later than one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building or before the expiry of such further period as the Rent Controller may, for reasons, to be recorded in writing, allow and such an undertaking contemplated in Section 14(2)(b) of the Act was not given by the landlord in this case before the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction, In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decision reported in Alamelu v. Visalakshi (1978) II MLJ 171. The learned Counsel contended that no doubt in this case, the landlord in his evidence as P.W.1 has given an undertaking that if the possession of the demised premises was given to him, he undertakes to demolish and reconstruct the building immediately. But such an undertaking given in the course of evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient and it will not satisfy the mandatory requirement prescribed by Section 14(2)(b) of the Act. The learned Counsel further contended that the undertaking contemplated in Section 14(2)(b) of the Act must be undertaking given in writing. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is without substance. In this case, there is a clear statement in the deposition of P.W. 1 (landlord) that if possession is given, he would demolish and reconstruct the building immediately. In my view, that such statement in the deposition of the landlord is an undertaking sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 14(2)(b) of the Act. Neither in the Act nor, in the Rules framed under the Act any form is prescribed for the undertaking mentioned in Section 14(2)(b) of the Act. Srinivasan J., in the decision reported in Thayammal v. K. Subramaniam 1989 1 LW 228 dealing with identical question has held as follows:
When the party gives evidence on oath and particularly when he sighs the deposition, that will be a sufficient undertaking within the meaning of the Section. There is no necessity to file a separate undertaking apart from such evidence.
Hence the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there was no undertaking as required by Section 14(2)(b) of the Act has to be rejected.
4. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that a single petition for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of two different buildings bearing door No. 24/A, Ekambara Pillai Street and door No. 10, Moogilamman Koil Street is not maintainable Ex. A. A and the evidence available in this case discloses that the demised premises is situated in a corner plot facing Ekambara Pillai Street and Moogilamman Koil Street and two different numbers are given to the portions of premises in question which constitute a single unit. Admittedly both the portions having two different numbers are subject of a single lease and that too, to a single tenant for a consolidated rent of Rs.12/- per mensem. The petitioners are in common enjoyment of the premises as a whole though the premises bear two door numbers. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioners by the landlord filing a single petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Nainar Sundaram J., in the decision reported in D. Rukmani Ammal v. V.K. Isudeen dealing with an identical question has held as follows:
In the instant case though there are two different numbers, they have been the subject matter of a single lease and that too to a single tenant; and structurally the two different numbers are situated in such a proximity and other physical features establish such a nexus that there is a warrant to treat them as single unit let out as such to the tenant. The tenant is in common enjoyment of the unit as a whole though bearing two different numbers. By no stretch of imagination, it could be stated that the tenant was put to prejudice by the process of a single petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act adopted by the landlord.
In these circumstances, the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners also cannot be accepted.
5. The third contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the landlord has not proved that his requirement of the demised premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. As far as the petition for eviction is concerned, the question whether the requirement for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide or not has to be considered on the basis of the evidence let in by the landlord with regard to the condition of the building and the possession of the necessary funds etc., The Supreme Court has laid down in Metalware & Co. v. Bansilal the principles Which have to be followed regarding the demolition and reconstruction. The courts below have found on the facts that the landlord has let in evidence to prove that the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court have been satisfied in this case. The evidence in this case discloses that the demised premises consist of two thatched portions and the premises were leased out to Ravanappa Naidu, father of the petitioners 1 and 2,40 years prior to the filing of RCOP. Ex.P.8 is the deposition of Ravanappa Naidu in RCOP filed in the year 1951 wherein he has stated that both the portions of the building in question is in a dilapidated condition. There is sufficient evidence in this case to show that both the portions of the building have only thatched roof and they are in a dilapidated condition. Exs.P-1, P-6 and P-7 go to show that the landlord has obtained sanction from the Municipality for constructing a building in the premises in question after demolishing the existing building. There is ample evidence in this case to prove the means of the. landlord for putting up a construction after demolition. Having regard to the evidence let in by the landlord, the findings of the Authorities below that the landlord’s requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide, is unassailable. Therefore, the third contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners also fails.
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Somasundaram, J.
Six months’ time granted to the tenants for vacating the premises on condition that they pay the entire arrears of rent, if any, and on further condition that the tenants file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks from today, undertaking to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period of six months granted in this order.