Landlord not going into witness box.

S. Swamikkannu, J.

1. This is a revision filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), as amended by Act (XXIII of 1973), hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the landlord against the reversing finding of the learned Appellate Authority--Fifth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in H.R.A. No. 861 of 1979.

2. The landlord has filed H.R.C. No. 2180 of 1977, under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act, seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, subletting and bond fide requirement of the premises by the landlord, for his own use and occupation. The respondent herein is a tenant of the upstairs portion of door No. 5, C.P. Ramaswami Iyer Road, Madras-18, on a monthly rent of Rs. 251. The landlord averred in his petition for eviction that he is not maintaining good health for the last few years and is often visiting Madras for medical treatment, that his family is also coming to Madras along with him and they have to stay in lodges or other places on rents and often it is found very difficult to get accommodation, that he requires the premises for his own use and Occupation, that the respondent has sublet the premises and that he had not paid rent from February, 1975 till date and thereby committed willful default in payment of rent and that the landlord is not in possession of any other house of his own in the city of Madras.

3. The respondent-tenant resisted the eviction petition contending that he has paid an advance of Rs. 750, at the time of the inception of tenancy, that he requested the landlord to carry out repairs but the latter did not comply with the same, that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide, that the tenant had not sublet the premises to any other person and ever since the inception of tenancy, he is using the premises both for residence and for business purposes. The tenant has also denied the allegation regarding the irregularity in the payment of rent in that he had been regularly tendering the rent but the same was refused by the landlord, and as such, he had not committed wilful default in payment of rent.

4. The learned Rent Controller held that the respondent-tenant has not committed wilful default in payment of rent, and that the landlord has not proved his case of subletting. But, on the ground of (requirement for) own occupation, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by that order, the tenant took the matter on appeal and the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller holding that the premises in question is only a residential premises and that the landlord has miserably failed to prove that the demised premises is required by him for his stay for the purpose of medical treatment. It is against this, the present revision is filed by the landlord.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-landlord that the learned Appellate Authority had not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and it ought not to have allowed the appeal since the bona fide requirement had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and what is more, it had been made specifically clear that the landlord has no other building of his own excepting the demised premises and when he requires the same for his own occupation, there cannot be any effective opposition put forward on behalf of the tenant. In this regard, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the learned Rent Controller had come to the correct conclusion in that the demised premises is required for the occupation of the landlord and that the said requirement is bona fide. It is also pleaded by the landlord before the Rent Controller that due to old age, infirmity and sickness, the landlord has a desire to live in his own premises'.

6. Even at the outset it has to be held that the reasoning offered by the learned Appe