M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.

1. The revision petition has been filed by the tenant, who is an advocate at Wallaja, against the eviction order granted by the appellate Court in C.M.A. No. 77 of 1979 reversing the dismissal of the eviction petition in H.R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ranipet.

2. The landlady, who is the respondent herein, filed the eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, on the ground of personal occupation. The petition was opposed by the petitioner herein stating that the petition is motivated since the prior proceedings initiated by the landlady for evicting the tenant proved futile. The learned Rent Controller, on the evidence before him, gave the finding that the requirement of premises for personal occupation is not true and bona fide. According to the revision petitioner, the grounds on which the eviction petition was dismissed are cogent and convincing. But on appeal by the landlady the order of the Rent Controller was reversed and the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlady is true and bona fide. Hence this revision.

3. It is not disputed that the land