Court held landlady entitled to raise additional ground in revision.

The landlady has preferred the above revision against the order of the Appellate Authority reversing the order of the Rent Controller ordering eviction. The landlady originally filed the petition for eviction for owner’s occupation under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) since she was residing in a rental premises. She purchased the property in question on 11. 1983 from her aunt. When she purchased the same, the property was under the occupation of three tenants including the respondent herein. She filed three R.C.O.Ps., against the three tenants for eviction on the ground of owner’s occupation.

The petition filed against the respondent herein is R.C.O.P. No.46 of 1985. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on 21. 1987. In the meanwhile, two tenants by name Ramachandran and Mahalingam have vacated the portions in their occupation. Thereupon, the landlady occupied the portions vacated by the two tenants.

2. Against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the tenant/respondent herein filed . R.C.A.No. 43 of 1987 before the Appellate Authority/ Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The tenant has also filed a petition for appointment of a Commissioner before the Appellate Authority to find out as to whether the landlady was occupying her own house or residing in arented premises. The Commissioner filed a report stating that the landlady has been in occupation of a portion of her own premises which was vacated by the tenants Ramachandran and Mahalingam. On this subsequent event, the Appellate Authority has reversed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the landlady is occupying a portion of her own premises and that the portion under her occupation is more than sufficient for her family. Aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Authority, the landlady has filed the present revision.

3. I have heard Mr.V. Natarajan, for the landlady/ revision petitioner and Mr.K.R. Thiagarajan for the tenant/ respondent.

4. According to Mr.V.Natarajan, the finding of the Appellate Authority that the landlady is not residing in arented premises, in the absence of any legal proof contrary to the findings of the Rent Controller, is against law and not sustainable, and that the Appellate Authority has erred in reversing the well reasoned order of the Rent Controller. It is also further contended that filing of earlier application by the vendor of the landlady cannot at all be a bar for the present application being filed. Therefore, Mr.V.Natarajan contended that the entire approach of the Appellate Authority is patently wrong and that the further finding of the Appellate Authority that the portion in the occupation of the landlady is more thansufficient for her is beyond the scope of the Appellate Authority, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. Mr.K.R.Thiagarajan, on the other hand, contended that the order of the Appellate Authority is a well reasoned one and that the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. He would also submit that the landlady has not placed before Court any proof in regard to her occupation of the rental premises.

6.I have carefully gone through the entire pleadings and the documents filed by both parties and of the evidence tendered. It is seen from the eviction petition filed by the landlady that she was in occupation of Door No.7, Bharathiar Road, Madurai-10. Admittedly, she filed three eviction petitions against the respondent herein and two other tenants. The petitions were filed under Sec.l0(3)(a)(i) of the Act for owner’s occupation of the entire premises under the occupation of the three tenants in Door N0.8-A, Bharathiar Road, Madurai-10. The landlady has specifically stated that she purchased the house bearing Door N0.8-A, Bharathiar Road under the occupation of the tenants for her own use and that she and her children are living in a rented house and that