Court below committed serious error in giving concurrent finding.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 8.7.2002 rendered in R.C.A.No.46 of 1999 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 12.8.1999 made in H.R.C.O.P.No.74 of 1998 by the Rent Controller, Pondicherry.

2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that the landlady/respondent herein has filed a petition for eviction on the ground of personal occupation for her business purposes stating that the tenant/petitioner herein came into possession in the year 1979 for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.300/= and the same having come to be raised, at the time of filing the petition, it was Rs.750/= p.m.; that the landlady was in possession of another building on rental basis and was carrying on business; that she was asked to vacate the said premises by her landlord; that she wanted her own building for doing her business; that there were civil litigations between the parties in O.S.No.628 of 1997; that since the tenant did not vacate the premises, she has filed the present petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal occupation.

3. The tenant contested the petition alleging that the tenancy period was renewed for a later period up to 1999 and as such, the petition for eviction is pre-mature; that the landlady's husband has been carrying on business and she is only a house-wife and therefore, her claim for eviction of the tenant for the purpose of her own business is not bonafide; that the landlady and her husband are permanently residing at Madras and doing business under the name and style of 'Hotel Nayagara Private Limited' at Kodambakkam; that the tenant has also obtained permanent injunction in O.S.No.628 of 1997 to safeguard his possession and therefore, this petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Rent controller, after analysing the materials placed on record and upon hearing both sides, allowed the petition and ordered eviction of the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has preferred R.C.A.No.46 of 1999 and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also concurring with the Rent Controller, has dismissed the Appeal against which, the above civil revision has been filed on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel for both, besides reiterating what has already been traced factually, would also cite each one judgment in their favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner would cite the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in S.J.EBENEZER vs. VELAYUDHAN AND OTHERS reported in (1998) II MLJ (SC) 50 wherein it has been held:

"While considering the question of bona fides, what is necessary to bear in mind is that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough. The desire must be tested objectively and not subjectively. The burden also lies upon the landlord to establish that he genuinely requires the accommodation for the purpose of starting or continuing his own business."

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent would cite the judgment delivered by a learned single Judge of this Court in K.PANCHAVARNAMMAL (DIED) AND OTHERS vs. E.SARASWATHIAMMAL AND THREE OTHERS reported in 1996-II-CTC 98 wherein, when a tenant made use of the premises for the purpose different from the one for which it was let out and the landlord accepted the rent from the tenant without protest, the learned Judge has held that 'after knowing that the building is used for different purpose, acquiescence on the part of landlord cannot be presumed by acceptance of rent but a written consent is necessary and such consent cannot be inferred by conduct or silence on the part of the landlord and mere acceptance of rent will not amount to consent for different purpose'. The lear