When the matter came up for admission, the respondent took notice as Caveator, the matter was argued for final disposal.

2. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The eviction was sought on the ground of owner's occupation. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority concurrently held that the respondent had proved that the property is required for his own occupation and therefore, the tenant is before us.

3. The petition property is situate in T.No.4165, East Main Street, Pudukottai Town, and is a non-residential one. The petitioner, claims to have been inducted as a tenant in 1979 and had continued in possession as tenant subject to increase of rent periodically. In 1992, there was an exchange of correspondence between the parties and the letter dated 22.10.1992, which was marked as Ex.R3 was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent. According to Ex.R3, the petitioner indicated their willingness to occupy the premises for a further period of ten years subject to an option for renewal for another period of three years, and it is also seen from Ex.R3, that the rent will be Rs.5000/- per month and that already a sum of Rs.14,000/= is with the respondent as