The judgment and decree, dated 14.8.2013 and made in the Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A. No. 52 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Madurai, confirming the fair and decretal order, dated 17.10.2011 and made in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thirumangalam are under challenge in this memorandum of civil revision.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of the petition mentioned premises, whereas the respondents 1 to 3 are the landlords.

3. For easy reference and also for the sake of convenience, the respondents 1 to 3 may hereinafter be referred to as the landlords whereas the revision petitioner be referred to as the tenant wherever the context so require.

4. As it appear from the records the landlords had filed the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2009 as against the tenant under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) seeking an order of eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, owners occupation and act of waste.

5. That petition was resisted by the tenant by filing his counter statement.

6. On evaluating the evidences both oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller had proceeded to allow the petition only on the ground of own use and occupation. The petition in respect of other two grounds, viz., wilful default and act of waste was dismissed.

7. Virtually, the landlords had not preferred any appeal against the dismissal of the petition on the ground of wilful default and act of waste. But the tenant having been aggrieved by the order of eviction on the ground of own use and occupation had preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 52 of 2012 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, viz., Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

8. After hearing both sides, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal on 14.8.2013 after confirming the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller.

9. Challenging the correctness of the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant has preferred the present civil revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

10. Along with the revision, the tenant has also filed a miscellaneous application in M.P.3 of 2013 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce and mark some photographs and a compact disc (C.D.) as additional documentary evidences on his side.

11. Heard Mr. S. Pon Senthil Kumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Nagendiran, learned counsel appearing for the landlords.

12. The facts which are essential for the disposal of this revision are as under:-

13. The case of the landlords is that the tenant came to be in occupation of the petition mentioned premises as a tenant on agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.750/- p.m. as rent besides paying the electricity charges separately. At the time of induction, he had given an undertaking that he would vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the building whenever required by the landlord.

14. The landlords require the building for their own use and occupation both for residence as well as non-residential purpose.

15. When the landlords approached the tenant in the month of October 2006 to get the delivery of the portion occupied by him, he had abruptly refused to vacate the premises.

16. The tenant had also committed default in payment of monthly rent from August 2006. The demand made by the landlords for the payment of arrears of rent also ended in futile. Therefore, the landlords had issued a notice, dated 30.11.2006 through their lawyer demanding the tenant to vacate the premises, however he had given a reply with false allegations and finally the landlord had issued a notice on 1.2.2007 demanding vacant possession of the