Power of the High Court sitting in revision.

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 landlady, who is a widow now, had filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 1972 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ranipet, on two grounds viz., personal occupation and demolition for reconstruction. In the said petition, the ground of personal occupation was not pressed and the parties went for trial on the ground of demolition for reconstruction. The said eviction petition was dismissed vide Exhibit B-1 printed copy of the order dated 16th July, 1973. The appeal preferred by the landlady in C.M.A. No. 17 of 1974 was also dismissed vide Exhibit B-2, certified copy of the judgment, dated 15th March, 1975. Thereafter the landlady filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 13 of 1976, on the file of the Rent Controller, Ranipet, for fixation of fair rent and the said petition was allowed to be dismissed as not pressed as seen from Exhibit B-3, dated 31st January, 1977. Immediately thereafter the present H.R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1977 has been filed for personal occupation.

4. As already observed, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the requirement for personal occupation is true and bona fide. It is not disputed at the time when the landlady instituted proceedings in 1973 under Exhibit B-1 and in 1975 under Exhibit B-2 the husband of the landlady was alive and that she become a widow thereafter. For coming to the conclusion that the requirement for personal occupation is true and bona, fide, the appellate authority took into consideration the occupation of the building by the landlady at Vellore as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 17.50, the intention of the landlady to shift from Vellore, which is a big municipal town, to Wallajah, which is a small town, wherein the schedule building is situate, and the education of the five children of the landlady at Wallajah. It is seen from the order of the Rent Controller that the previous proceedings under Exhibits B-l to B-3 have weighed much whereas they have not weighed so much on the mind of the appellate authority.

5. Now, the only point to be considered is, whether under the present Section 10(3)(a)(i), the requirement of the landlady is true and bona fide. Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act XVIII of 1960, reads as follows:

A landlord may, subject to the provisions of Clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building--

(i) in case it is a residential building, if the landlord requires it for has own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned.

It is not disputed that the landlady is not occupying a residential building of her own in Wallajah wherein the demised building is situate. Admittedly, it is a residential building. Hence t