(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act, against the Judgment and Decree passed in R.C.A.No.661 of 2017 dated 25.09.2018, passed by the learned VIII Small Causes Court at Chennai confirming the Judgment and Decree in R.C.O.P.No.1129 of 2013, dated 21.09.2017 on the file of the learned XII Small Causes Court at Chennai.)

The unsuccessful tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court. The revision is filed challenging the order passed in R.C.A.No.661 of 2017 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Chennai, dismissing the appeal filed by the tenant challenging the order of eviction passed by the learned XII Small Causes Judge (Rent Controller), Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.1129 of 2013. The parties are referred to in the same litigative status as in the Rent Control Petition. Though the matter was posted for admission, both parties agreed that their arguments could be treated as final arguments in the revision. The facts in brief, necessary for disposing of the above Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

2. The landlady had filed R.C.O.P.No.1129 of 2013, against the tenant seeking eviction on the ground of owner's occupation in respect of non-residential building. It was the case of the landlady, that her husband had purchased the entire property including the petition premises in the year 1992 and on 16.04.2009, he had settled one portion on his daughter and thereafter settled the petition premises on the landlady under a settlement deed dated 13.03.2013.

3. It is the case of the land lady that the respondent had been inducted as a tenant in respect of the petition premises in the year 2002, on a monthly rental of Rs.3,000/- and an advance of Rs.25,000/- had been paid by the tenant. After the petition premises was settled on the landlady, the tenant had attorned tenancy in her favour.

4. The landlady would contend that she is a Doctor and had retired as a Professor of Gynaecology from the Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai. On her retirement she had taken up employment as a professor with SRM Medical College and was also simultaneously running a clinic in a rented building paying a monthly rental of Rs.6,000/-. It is the case of the landlady that she had requested the tenant to evict and handover vacant possession of the petition premises however which was refused by the tenant.

5. The landlady would contend that she was living in the rear portion and the petition premises is therefore ideally suited for running a clinic. She would contend that she is not in possession of any other property and therefore had come forward to file the Rent control Petition.

6. The tenant had resisted the said petition primarily on the ground that the petition lacked bonafides and was only an attempt to somehow evict him from the petition premises. He would contend that the landlady's husband, K.S.Venkatachalam, had filed R.C.O.P.No.1222 of 2006 (for fixation of fair rent) and R.C.O.P.No.1225 of 2006 (for demolition and reconstruction) against the tenant on the file of the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, thereafter, the said Venkatachalam had also filed R.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2010 on the very same ground as pleaded in R.C.O.P.No.1225 of 2006. It is the case of the tenant that since R.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2010 was filed on the very same ground, the tenant had filed M.P.No.574 of 2010, invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, herein after called the Act, for dismissing R.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2010.

7. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but was however allowed in R.C.A.No.672 of 2011 by an order dated 10.12.2012, consequently R.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2010 stood dismissed by an order dated 15.02.2013.

8. It is the further case of the tenant that after the dismissal of the R.C.O.P.No.1019 of 2010, which was not challenged by the said Venkatachalam. Without challenging the said o