ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Order 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as against the order and decretal order dated 23.01.2020 passed in RCA.No.145 of 2014 on the file of VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order and decretal order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP.No.1265 of 2012.

2. The petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondents and the respondents are legal heirs of one Late Sundaram. Originally, the RCOP.No.1265 of 2012 was filed by the respondents seeking an order of eviction, directing the petitioner / tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property. The landlords claim that the tenant based on the lease agreement entered with the Late Sundaram came into occupation of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs.7,500/- during November 2000 and paid Rs.1 Lakh as advance. At the time of instituting the proceedings, the tenant was paying Rs.13,000/- per month as rent, and after expiry of the lease period, the lease was neither extended nor renewed by the Late Sundaram. The landlords further claim that initially they were all living as joint family at Pallavaram, and after the death of the said Sundaram on 31.05.2007, they found it very difficult to live in the house at Pallavaram as certain misunderstanding took place with the other family members. The 2nd respondent who is an Engineering Graduate and previously working at Guindy wanted to pursue his higher studies and wanted to live within the city limits for seeking better opportunity. Hence the landlords, legal heirs of Late Sundaram, has requested the petitioner / tenant to vacate the petition premises for their own use and occupation.

3. Immediately, the tenant has sent a legal notice dated 24.11.2008 through his counsel requesting time till July 2009 to find out an alternative accommodation. As per the request made by the petitioner / tenant, the landlords have given time till July 2009, but the tenant did not vacate the petition premises even after July 2009. Hence the landlords have issued a termination of lease notice on 15.12.2009 and asked the petitioner / tenant to vacate the petition premises within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said notice. In spite of repeated requests made by the respondents / landlords, the petitioner has not come forward to vacate the premises. Hence the landlords were constrained to file a petition in RCOP.No.1265 of 2012 before the Rent Control Authority at Chennai seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of owners use and occupation.

4. The petitioner / tenant has filed a counter denying the entire allegations except the tenancy under the respondent / landlord and sought for dismissal of the said petition. The Learned Rent Controller by order and decretal order dated 30.01.2014 held that the requirement of the landlords is bonafide and allowed the petition granting two months time to the petitioner / tenant to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA.No.145 of 2014 which also came to be dismissed by the First Appellate Authority upholding the order of the Rent Control Authority at Chennai. As against which, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner / tenant.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority ought to have allowed the appeal, especially when the respondents had suppressed their own alternative place of occupation within the city limits at Adyar. The requirement of the petition premises for the higher studies of 3rd respondent was not there at the time of filing the petition, because as PW1 the 3rd respondent himself has admitted during the cross examination that he completed his higher studies even prior to filing of the petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the respondents have admitted that they own a flat at Adyar with