Appellate authority confirmed order of eviction on the ground of wilful default.

The tenant in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Controller, District Munsif Court, Sivagiri is the revision petitioner. The petition was filed on 21. 1993 and renumbered as R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1998. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the schedule building which is non-residential in nature is required for bona fide occupation of his son who is a Medical Practitioner. The landlord son has completed his medical education and has to conduct a clinic in the scheduled premises.

2. Thereafter an amendment application was filed seeking eviction on the ground that the tenant had defaulted in paying the rent. After taking evidence the Rent Controller held that the landlord is not entitled to get possession on the ground that his son requires the scheduled premises for his own occupation. The reason for holding the claim is not bona fide was at the time when the landlord was examined he stated that his son is employed at Ajmeer and is residing there with his family. In regard to the claim for eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent, the Rent Controller held that even though such a claim was made by the landlord in the notice itself, the non-payment for years together will an amount to wilful default though the same was not a ground for eviction initially. It is further found by the rend controller that amendment application was filed in the year 1997 and even at that time the tenant did not tender rent and the amount was deposited only one year after. Hence the Rent Controller held that the tenant was indefault in paying the rent and the same is wilful. Eviction is ordered.

3. Against the order the tenant filed C.C.A.No.18 of 1998 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, principal Sub-Court, Tenkasi, The appellate authority also confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of willful default. Before the appellate authority the landlord filed an application to receive additional evidence and contended that he is entitled to eviction on the ground of bona fide occupation also. The additional evidence was proceedings of the Government whereby the resignation of petitioners son was accepted by the Government. Argument was taken by the appellate authority that in view of the subsequent event, the disqualification for getting eviction for own occupation is now removed and his son has now ceased to be a Government servant therefore he requires the scheduled building for his occupation i.e., for conducting the clinic in the scheduled premises. The additional evidence was accepted and the appellate authority held that the landlord is entitled to get eviction on the ground of bona fide own occupation also.

4. The said findings are challenged in this revision under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960

5. Even though the power under Sec.25 of the Rent control Act is more than Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, still this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as if it is a second court of first appeal. If the view expressed by the authorities below are reasonable and such a view is also possible on the available materials, simply because another view can be taken will not be a ground for interference under Sec.25 of the Act. If the authorities below have taken into consideration all relevant materials and has also followed settled legal principles as uninitiated by the Supreme Court or by this Court, then the revisional powers are not to be exercised.

6. With this limitation in power under Sec.25, I had to consider whether the decision of the authorities below is in any way irregular, improper or illegal under Sec.25 of the Act.

7. Landlord claimed eviction on the ground that his son requires the schedule building for his own occupation, he wants to conduct a clinic he being a qualified medical practitioner.

8. It is admitted on both sides the son is not having any non-resid