Conditions prescribed in Section satisfied.

G. Ramanujam, J.

1. This revision is filed by the landlord against the order of the Appellate Authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) affirming the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing his eviction petition filed against the respondent tenant.

2. The landlord/petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act for wilful default in payment of rent and under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act based on his requirement of the building for his use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on his own business; The tenant-respondent resisted the said eviction petition on the ground that he has not committed willful default in payment of arrears rent and that the claim of the landlord that the building is required for his own use and I occupation for non-residential purposes was not bona fide. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by both parties, held that the tenant had not committed willful default in payment of the monthly rents and that the claim of the landlord that he requires the premises for his own use and occupation for purposes of carrying on his own business is not bona fide. In that view, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal, the Appellate Authority has agreed with the view of the Rent Controller confirmed his order dismissing the eviction petition.

3. In this revision filed by the landlord against the findings rendered by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in respect of both the grounds of eviction has been questioned. However, I do not see how the landlord could challenge the concurrent finding of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority that the tenant has not committed willful default in payment of arrears of rent. It is well-established that a concurrent finding based on evidence be interfered with in revision by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. Therefore, the concurrent finding of both the authorities below that the tenant had not committed willful default in payment of arrears of rent cannot be successfully questioned before this Court.

4. So far as the finding rendered by the authorities below that the requirement of the premises by the landlord was not bona fide is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/landlord contends that though that finding is a concurrent one, it could be interfered with by this Court as that finding has been rendered without reference to the relevant statutory provisions applicable to the case. According to the learned Counsel for the landlord, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have proceeded to adopt the test applicable to a case to determine the bona fide or otherwise of the landlord in requiring the premises for his own occupation as a case falling under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act ignoring the fact that Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is differently worded from Section 10(3) (a) (i) of the Act. The learned Counsel seeks support for his submission that the authorities below have not applied the correct statutory provision from the decision of Mohan, J., in Mahalakshmi Metal Industries v. K. Suseeladevi (1982) 2 M.L.J. 333.

5. Before I proceed to consider the scope of the said decision and its applicability to the facts of this case, the relevant facts can be touched upon. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises viz., Shop. No. 2 in New Door No. 65, Irusappa Gramani Street, Triplicane, Madras-5. According to the landlord, the respondent is a tenant in respect of that shop, which he is using as a non-residential premises. The landlord is carrying on business in mattresses, pillows and mats in New Door No. 256, Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Madras-5 under the name and style of M/s. A. Sheik Meera Sahib and Sona on a monthly rent of Rs. 140. The landlord has alleged in his eviction petition that