Scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited.

1. Both these revision petitions are filed by the tenant against the order of eviction passed against him. The subject matter of eviction petitions are same building but two applications were filed by the landlady.

2. R.C.O.P.No.2848 of 1994 was filed under Sec.10(3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, i.e., Landlady bona fide requires the scheduled premises for her own occupation. The other eviction petition R.C.O.P.No.2869 of 1994 was filed by the same landlady under Secs.10(2) (ii) (b) and 10(2) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, i.e., tenant has committed acts of waste in the property and that the building is used for the purposes other than for which it is let out.

3. Rent Controller held that the claim of landlady is bona fide and the needs the building for her own occupation. Though appeal in R.C.A.No.815 of 1997 was preferred, the same did not meet with success and the same was also dismissed. It is against the concurrent finding of authorities below, C.R.P.No.1132 of 2000 is filed.

.4. In R.C.O.P.No.2869 of 1994 Rent Controller held that though tenant has taken the building for his residence, it is not being used as such and in fact major portion of the building is now being used as godown for storing cement and hospital materials. Tenant is running a clinic just opposite to the scheduled building and is also putting up a new construction, a five storeyed building and it is found that water from the scheduled building is being used for the purpose of constructing the new building. Even though Rent Controller held that no damage is proved, to scheduled building, tenant is using the building for the purpose other than for which it is let out. Against the said order, tenant preferred R.C.A.No.817 of 1997 on the file of Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed. It is against that judgment C.R.P.No.1133 of 2000 is filed.

5. Since caveat was entered by respondent, I heard the revision petitions at the admission stage itself.

6. I will first consider C.R.P.No.1132 of 2000, which arises from R.C.O.P.No.2848 of 1994.

7. In the eviction petition landlady said that she is now residing in her brothers house and she needs the building for her own occupation. According to her, she has no other building of her own and she is a widow. She does not want to reside with her brother.

8. As against the said allegations, tenant contended that the claim is not bona fide as landlady is making illegal methods to evict him and also he had to file a suit as O.S.7338 of 1994 to restrain landlady from interfering with his possession and to forcibly dispossess him from the scheduled property. According to tenant, he has also obtained injunction in I.A.16276 of 1994 against landlady for illegal dispossession. Claim of landlady is not bona fide and he prayed for dismissal of the application.

9. Rent Controller relied on the evidence of P.W.1, landlady. She pleaded that she does not want to continue with his brother not because of strained relationship but because she wants to reside in her own building during her last days. She said that she is a widow and has no other building of her own. She further said that tenant himself admitted that her claim is bona fide and admitted that he will vacate the building in 1994 itself. She further stated that thereafter tenant was even prepared to vacate the premises and telephone connections was also disconnected and shifted to the building belonging to him just opposite to the scheduled premises. Ex.P-2 letter is written by tenant agreeing to vacate the premises. Tenant admitted that he has executed Ex.P-2 letter but according to him it is not valid and enforceable. It is true that even though tenant admits that he will vacate, landlord on the basis of consent alone is not entitled to get eviction when eviction ground is not found bona fide. But letter Ex.P-2 cannot be said as irrelevant while considering bona fides of landlord