The landlord's bonafide requirement for owner's occupation, as established through evidence, entitles the landlord to evict the tenant. The landlord's right to choose the portion for his own occupation was emphasized by the court.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent landlord filed R.C.O.P. No.29 of 2001 against the petitioner herein on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, seeking for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of willful default and owner’s occupation. Learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on both grounds by order dated 30.11.2006. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent landlord preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.6/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee. The Appellate Authority, concurred with the order of the learned Rent Controller on the ground of willful default, however allowed the appeal and ordered eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of owner's occupation. Challenging the said order of the Appellate Authority, the present civil revision petition is filed before this Court.

2. The landlord though filed eviction petition on the ground of willful default and owner's occupation, his application was rejected by both the authorities below in so far as the ground of willful default is concerned. Admittedly, the landlord has not challenged the said finding rendered by both the authorities below and thus, the only issue arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is as to whether the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of owner's occupation is valid and consequently, whether the petitioner/tenant is liable to be evicted on that ground.

3. The respondent herein is the landlord and the petitioner herein is the tenant. The relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The demised premise is a shop measuring an extent of 100 sq.ft. bearing Door No.3/472, Valayapathi Salai, J.J.Nagar, Muggappair East, Chennai-50. The petitioner herein was inducted as a tenant during the year 1996 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,331/-.

4. Insofar as the ground of owner's occupation is concerned, the respondent contended in the eviction petition that the demised premises is bonafidely required for his unemployed daughter for starting a Computer Internet Center. It is also averred by the respondent that his son-in-law is also a Computer Engineer and unemployed and as such, both his daughter and his son-in-law were not in a position to pay huge sums by way of rental advance for taking building on lease for running a Computer Internet Center. Therefore, for providing a space for them to start such computer center, the respondent herein wanted the above premises on the ground of owner's occupation.

5. The petitioner herein resisted the said application and contended that the landlord is owning two more shops adjacent to the petition mentioned property and that the space of 100 sq.ft. is not sufficient for running the computer center. He also contended that the daughter of the respondent is not a qualified person for running a computer center and as such, there is no bonafide requirement on the part of the respondent/landlord.

6. The respondent/landlord in support of his claim on the ground of owner's occupation marked Exs.P3 to P7 and also examined himself as P.W.1 and his daughter as P.W.2. The petitioner/tenant did not mark any exhibits and only examined himself as R.W.1.

7. The learned Rent Controller rejected the petition for eviction by holding that the landlord did not file any documents to show that he had taken steps to commence the business and the documents filed by him only show that the daughter of the landlord was qualified in computer applications. The learned Rent Controller also taken note of fact that the landlord is the owner of two more shops lying adjacent to the petition mentioned premises, out of which one shop was vacated by the tenant therein after filing the present RCOP, which the landlord could have used for the purpose of his daughter's business.

8. When the order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged before the Appellate Authority, the bonafide requirement of the l