T.N. Singaravelu, J.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent-landlord filed the petition, H.R.C. No. 1504 of 1979 for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of requirement for additional accommodation. The tenant in turn filed H.R.C. No. 2410 of 1979 against the landlord for restoration of the amenity, namely water supply. Both the petitions were tried together and the Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is true and bona fide and therefore, ordered eviction. The other petition by the tenant for restoration of the amenity was also allowed since, in the meanwhile, the landlord himself restored the water supply. The tenant filed an appeal against the order of eviction and the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller with reference to the requirement for additional accommodation of the landlord. The tenant has now come on revision.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for both sides and perused the order of the Appellate Authority. So far as the requirement for additional accommodation is concerned, the tenant has no arguable case. According to the landlord, the premises in the occupation of