ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, praying for to set aside the order dated 09.11.2020 in M.P. No.229 of 2019 in R.C.A. No.369 of 2017 passed by the Hon'ble IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent being the landlord is the petitioner and the petitioner being tenant is the respondent in R.C.O.P. No.644 of 2016 on the file of the XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai which has been filed by the respondent-landlord to vacate the petitioner tenant from the petition premises as the additional accommodation is required by the respondent landlord being a Medical practitioner, for setting up a clinic and consulting room in the said petition premises. The Court below after considering bona-fide reasons of the respondent-landlord and the entire oral and documentary evidence placed by both parties, by order dated 05.04.2017 has allowed the aforesaid petition and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the petition premises. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant has filed the appeal in R.C.A. No.369 of 2017 on the file of the IX Small Causes Court, Chennai, seeking for to set aside the order dated 05.04.2017 passed by XI Small Causes Court Judge (Rent Controller) in R.C.O.P. No.644 of 2016. After filing of the written arguments in the aforesaid appeal by both parties, the appellant/petitioner-tenant has filed M.P. No.229 of 2019 to re-open the above RCA enabling to file additional evidence on the side of the appellant/petitioner herein. The same was dismissed by order dated 09.11.2020 as the appellant/petitioner failed to produce the evidence before the Court below as adduced by him. Against the aforesaid order, the appellant/petitioner herein has filed the present Civil Revision petition to set aside the same.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Judge failed to note that while the Photographs were produced before the Court below, it observed that the same may be filed along with negative. However, the petition was dismissed by order dated 09.11.2020 without giving any opportunity to the appellant/petitioner tenant to prove on his side. It has been further submitted that the eviction order was passed by the Trial Court without taking into consideration of advantages and disadvantages on both sides while the appellant/petitioner is carrying on the business of provision from the year 2000 itself and taking care of the local residential people for so many years and there is another portion in the ground itself which fell vacant is not occupied by the respondent-landlord and the first floor is fully occupied by the respondent-landlord for the purpose of his profession. Having considered only the medical registration certificates of the respondent-landlord and his wife, the Trial Court has decided to vacate the petitioner-tenant from the petition premises by granting two months time. As there is no bonafide reason to be ordered to vacate the petitioner-tenant, the petitioner-tenant has filed the Appeal and after filing the written submission therein, the respondent-landlord has put up the To-let Board in the disputed premises to let out the same to others for which related photos of the same has been produced. It clearly proves that the additional accommodation required by the respondent-landlord is not bonafide reason and only a false requirement in order to evict the petitioner-tenant from the said premises and letting out the same to third party for huge rent. Hence, the petitioner-tenant has filed M.P.No.229 of 2019 before the Court below, to re-open the appeal enabling him to file additional evidence, in order to provide the evidence of malafide intention of the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant to vacate him. Without considering the aforesaid scenario, the Court below has dismissed the petition as there was no proper evidence to prove his averments. He