1. The Revision Petition is filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 14 of 1989, on the file of Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The main ground on which eviction is sought by the landlady is that her son requires the schedule building for his occupation. It is her case that her son who has studied M.B.B.S. is in dire need of non-residential building for running a clinic, and either she or her son does not own any other non-residential building, for the said purpose. It is said that various demands were made to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises, and at last a notice was issued on 27.2.1989, for which a reply was sent on 17.3.1989, refusing to hand over possession, and at the same, time, taking untenable contentions. On the above grounds, eviction petition was filed by the landlady.

3. In the counter-statement filed by the tenant, bona fide requirement for the son is denied. It is said that even before and after notice, other buildings became vacant, and if the Landlady had any intention to occupy any building for her son, she could have occupied one such building. He further said that landladys son is only studying for M.B.B.S. and he is not doing any profession.