The above civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12. 1995 made in R.C.A.No.53 of 1992 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem thereby dismissing the said appeal and confirming the fair and decretal order dated 18. 1992 made in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Munsif, Salem.

.2. Regarding the facts, it is the landlady, who filed the petition before the Rent Controller under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, seeking the eviction of the tenant on ground of requiring the premises for her additional accommodation. On her part, the landlady would allege in her rent control application that she purchased the petition property on 18. 1989 and even prior to her purchase, her husband was running a shoe-mart in the petition premises thus making use of the same for non-residential purposes; that the respondent is in occupation, as the tenant, of a portion of the petition is in occupation, as the tenant, of a portion of the petition premises measuring 3’ × 10’ running a watch repair shop therein; that the tenant in spite of intimation to the effect that the petitioner had purchased the property and in spite repeated demands made on her part from the date of her purchase of the said property to vacate the premises for the convenient running of the shoe-mart of her husband, which at present does not have sufficient frontage and the approach to the shoe-mart being very narrow thus causing lot of inconvenience in the running of the shoe-mart business, did not vacate the premises and hence the petition. The petitioner would further contend that if additional accommodation is not granted, the petitioner and her family members would be subjected to much loss and hardship apart from the loss that their business premises.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent/tenant, it would be urged that following the footsteps of his father, he is running the watch repairing shop in the petition premises, which is the only source of revenue for his family and the moment he is vacated, he will be thrown out of his business, that the petitioner has not made this application with good intentions and on bona fide grounds but has filed it only as a counter-blast to the suit filed by the respondent; that he does not even know about the purchase of the building by the petitioner; that the petitioner has leased out two other shops owned by her immediately on the West of the premises; that the premises is not at all required for the petitioner for additional accommodation; that there is no loss or hardship to the petitioner and the same would only be to the respondent, if he is ordered to be evicted; that nearly 20’ space that served as an approach to the petitioners building has been leased out by her in favour of two other tenants and thus absolutely no truth or bona fides attached to the petition and would pray for dismissal of the petition.

4. During trial, the petitioners has examined her husband and Power of Attorney Agent K.A.Siddiq Ali as P.W.1 and also marked the sale deed dated 18. 1989 as Ex.A-1. On the part of the respondent, he would not only examine himself as R.W.1, but also would examine yet another witness as R.W.2 and would mark four documents as Exs.B-1 to B-4.

5. In the oral evidence adduced by the husband of the petitioner as P.W.1, besides confirming what is pleaded in the application, he would also mark the sale deed dated 18. 1989, under which the property had been purchased in the name of the petitioner, as Ex.A-1. So also, on the part of the respondent, the other witness, examined is none other than a professional photographer, who has adduced evidence to the effect of having taken Ex.B-2 photo, the negative of which is Ex.B-3, a couple of years prior to his examination and the receipt issued by him would also be marked as Ex.B-4.

6. Onhis part, the respondent