S. Mohan, J.

1. The landlord is the revision petitioner before me. He sought eviction against the respondent in respect of the first floor of the premises bearing door No. 10, 6th Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, which, has been let out to the respondent for residential purpose. The case of the landlord was that he was residing in a rented house and he wanted to occupy the petition premises for his own use and occupation and, therefore, the requirement is bona fide. A notice was issued on 1st December, 1978, Exhibit P-3 terminating the tenancy with effect from 31st December, 1978. In spite of the same, the tenant did not comply with the demand. Hence, the petition.

2. The respondent in his counter raised the following contentions. It is not correct to say that the petitioner wants to stay in his own house independently. The requirement is not bona fide. The petitioner does not require the premises under the occupation of the respondent for his own use and occupation. The respondent denies the allegation that the petitioner is not occupying any building of his own in the City of Madras. The eviction application lacks bona fides because the respondent was not willing to pay hig