5.On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that the petition premises, which is situated in the heart of the City (i.e.) Walltax Road, Chennai, was leased out to the petitioners' father as early as in the year 1950 on a monthly rent of Rs.20/-. At present, the tenants are paying a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. When the premises was leased out to the tenants' father as early as in the year 1950, now, the age of the building is nearly 70 years, therefore, the condition of the building cannot be brushed aside as contended by the tenants. P.W.1 and P.W.2 also spoke about the condition of the building. According to them, the condition of the building was not good. When the R.C.O.P. was filed in the year 2005 and after a lapse of nearly 14 years, the condition of the building would have further deteriorated. It is needless to say that for ordering eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, it is not necessary that the only criteria for ordering the petition is with regard to the condition of the building. Even for better investment, the landlord can seek for demolition and reconstruction. The demised premises need not be in a dangerous condition and unfit for habitation for ordering of eviction to be passed on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. When the building is situated in the heart of the City and when the landlord is getting only a sum of Rs.200/- per month, even for better investment, he can seek for demolition and reconstruction. More so, when the age of the building is nearly 70 years, the tenants have not let in contra evidence to support their case. The Courts below, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, rightly ordered eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. I do not find any error or irregularity in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order passed by the Courts below. The Civil Revision Petition
