1. Both these revisions arise under Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control, Act, Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties are the same. The defeated tenant is the revision petitioner in both cases and landlord is the respondent. The parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord for purpose of the judgment.

2. In C.R.P. No. 370 of 1999 eviction was sought on the ground of own occupation/additional accommodation under sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and, 10(3)(a) of the Act. The other revision petition is against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on the ground of wilful default.

.3. One Essakkimuthu Konar filed R.C.O.P. No. 52 of 1994 under sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Act. He died pending proceedings and his son, the respondent herein came on record as the second petitioner in the eviction proceedings. The averments in the petition for eviction are as follows:

.Essakkimuthu Konar was suffering from diabetes. He had a set back in business. He wanted to change the line of business, He wanted to start a furniture mart. Door No.4 was already in his possession . Door No.5 which is the p