1. CRP (NPD) No.3277 of 2015 is filed against the order and decreetal order dated 02.02.2013 in RCA No.345 of 2003 on the file of the learned VII Small Causes Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority at Chennai dismissing the said Appeal thereby confirming the order and decreetal order dated 24.02.2003 in RCOP No.1436 of 2000 on the file of the learned X Small Causes Court and Rent Controller at Chennai.

2. CRP (NPD) No.1938 of 2016 is filed against the order and decreetal order dated 02.02.2013 in M.P.732 of 2010 in RCA No.345 of 2003 on the file of the learned VII Small Causes Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority at Chennai.

3. The parties and issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

4. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord in RCOP No.1436 of 2000 on the file of X Small Causes Court, Chennai. The respondent filed the above said RCOP against the respondent for eviction on the ground of wilful default, owner's occupation and act of waste. According to the respondent, originally the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the petition premises of the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.700/- and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.2,900/- per month from January 2000. According to the respondent, the petitioner did not pay the rent @ Rs.2,900/- but paid only Rs.2,100/- and thereby committed wilful default. Further, without the knowledge of the respondent, the petitioner made alterations in the building which was let out to him and caused much damages to the building. The respondent has four sons and all of them are unemployed. One of his son is carrying on roasting and grinding of coffee seeds in a rented premises at No.25, Arya Gowdar Road, West Mambalam, Chennai. Hence, the respondent requires the petition premises under the occupation of the petitioner for utilising the same for the business of his son. The petitioner did not own any building in the city except the petition premises. In the above circumstances, respondent issued notice on 29.05.2000 by registered post to the petitioner. The petitioner sent reply on 06.06.2000 denying all the allegations . The respondent sent re-joinder on 30.06.2000 and filed RCOP No.1436 of 2000 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default, owner's occupation and act of waste.

5. The petitioner filed counter statement and denied that the monthly rent is Rs.2,900/- and it was only Rs.2,100/- and he did not agree for the rent @ Rs.2,900/-. According to the petitioner, the respondent received the rent for the month of January & February 2000 @ Rs.2,100/- but subsequently, he refused to receive the monthly rent from the petitioner. The petitioner did not damage and did not cause any act of waste, as alleged by the respondent. As far as owner's occupation is concerned, at the time of filing of the RCOP, some of the portion of the petition premises were vacant and the son of the respondent could have occupied any one of the vacant portion for his business. Only with ulterior motive, the respondent has filed the eviction petition on the ground of owner's occupation. The petitioner has established his business in the petition premises. If he is evicted, he will be put to heavy loss and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Before the Rent Controller, the sons of the respondent were examined as PWs1 & 2 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The respondent examined himself as RW1 and marked three documents as Ex.R1 to R3. The learned Rent Controller, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, rejected the contention of the respondent with regard to wilful default and act of waste. As far as owner's occupation is concerned, the learned Rent Controller, considering Exs.P6 to P9 held that the respondent has proved that his son is carrying on business in a rented premises and re