Illegality committed by the authorities below can be corrected by High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

This revision is filed by the landlord in R.C.O.P. No.42 of 1988, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruppur. He filed the petition for eviction on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in paying the rent, and also on the grounds of change of user and bona fide requirement for own occupation, i.e., for the occupation of his son, who is married and living with the landlord.

.2. Before eviction proceedings started, the landlord issued notice on 11. 1988. In that notice, he stated that there was a prior negotiation between the parties wherein the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises within six months, and on the date of notice, the agreed period is due to expire, and that he was just reminding the tenant about the assurance. In the notice, he has stated that the building is required bona fide for the occupation of his son Ranganathan who is married and has two sons. On 111. 1988, the tenant sent a reply. He denied the so-called assurance referred to in the notice. He also disputed the claim of the landlord that the building is required for his bona fide own occupation. He denied the allegation that the building was put to non-residential user. It was thereafter the eviction petition was filed. In the eviction petition, he has stated that along with him, his son is also residing with his wife and two children. Further, he has got five daughters, of whom three are married, and the second daughter who is a widow is also living with the petitioner in the same house with her two children. Under these circumstances, the landlord wants his married son and his family to live in a separate residence. The other two grounds are, default in paying rent and also conversion of the building into non-residential. It is also stated in the petition that close to the schedule building, the petitioner has got an other building wherein one Thiagarajan is residing, being employed in a banian company opposite to that building. The petitioner has stated that the rent from that building is Rs.475 whereas the rent from the petition mentioned building is Rs.350, and since he is depending only on the rental income, he wants the schedule building so that the income may not be affected.

3. A detailed counter-affidavit was filed reiterating the contentions raised in the reply notice.

4. Before the Rent Controller, Exs. A-1 and A-2 were marked and the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1. The respondent examined himself as R.W.I and another witness as R.W.2. Exs.R-1 to R-8 were marked on the side of the respondent.

5. The Rent Controller, as per order dated 112. 1989, held that the landlord is not entitled to any relief. All the grounds of eviction were found against the landlord.

6. Regarding the claim for bona fide own use, the Rent Controller was of the view that the requirement is that of the son, and if so, the son ought to have been examined, and the non-examination of the son was considered as a serious inroad into the claim of bona fide requirement for own use. The Rent Controller also found that the claim of the landlord that so many persons are residing in the same house is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. At the same time, the Rent Controller found that the claim of the tenant that the landlord wanted a higher rent and when the same was refused to be paid, the petition for eviction was filed is not correct. The Rent Controller found that there was never a demand for enhanced rent. The other grounds were also found against the landlord. But in this revision petition, we are concerned only with the point as to whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide for the use of his son, is made out by the landlord.

.7. When the matter was taken on appeal, the appellate authority also confirmed the decision of the Rent Controller, mainly relying on the decision reported in Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swarnambal, (1984)2 M.L.J. 6: (1984)97 L. W. 182, wherein Ratnam, J., as he then was, has obs