The revision petitioner is the respondent/ tenant in R.C.O.P.No.226 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore and the appellant in R.C.A.No.128 of 1989 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Second Additional Sub-Judge), Coimbatore. The respondent is the landlord/petitioner in the rent control petition. In this judgment, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the landlord and the tenant. There is an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of owner’s occupation in respect of a non-residential building under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Controller rejected the eviction sought for on the ground of wilful default. The tenant filed an appeal and the learned appellate Judge held that the requirement of the landlord for owner’s occupation falling under Sec.l0(3) (a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is not made out and therefore that finding went in favour of the tenant. However, the appellate authority after going into the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default and dis- agre