ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, to set aside the order and decree dated 26.08.2022 in R.C.A.No.136 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble IX Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order and decree dated 29.01.2020 R.C.O.P.No.845 of 2018 on the file XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decree dated 26.08.2022 in R.C.A.No.136 of 2020, confirming the order and decree dated 29.01.2020 passed in R.C.O.P.No.845 of 2018.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent / landlord instituted eviction proceedings against the revision petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.845 of 2018, on the ground for owner's occupation. The subject property leased out to the revision petitioner is a shop measuring about 155 Sq.ft. at No.73, Baskaran Colony, Virugambakkam, Chennai-93. The revision petitioner / tenant occupied the said premises on the monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- by rental agreement dated 29.10.2014 and an advance amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid. The respondent / landlord filed eviction proceedings by stating that the revision petitioner / tenant had failed to pay the monthly rent from January 2015 and thereafter, he made a request to vacate the subject premises for his own use. However, the revision petitioner / tenant took long time and filed a Suit in O.S.No.1861 of 2017 on the file of XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and thereafter, sent the monthly rent through money order and filed R.C.O.P.No.1338 of 2017 under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. The landlord has raised an allegation that the revision petitioner / tenant was running the business in the name and style of 'Sreeram Stores' without obtaining proper license from the competent authorities and without paying CGST and SGST Taxes. Since the respondent / landlord required the subject premises for his own use and occupation for the purpose of starting his own provisional stores, he is not in possession of any other premises of his own in the city of Chennai. Thus, he filed a petition for eviction.

3. The revision petitioner objected the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent/landlord by stating that originally he entered into a rental agreement with one Smt. T. Umadevi, who was the erstwhile owner of the premises in the year 2007 for running his business in telecommunication, electronic goods and mobile phone sales services under the name and style of 'Sreeram Stores' on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. The said Smt. T. Umadevi sold the shop to the respondent / landlord and subsequently, he entered into a fresh rental agreement in the year 2013. The revision petitioner states that the landlord suddenly came to the shop and insisted the him to vacate the premises and therefore, the revision petitioner filed O.S.No.1861 of 2017 and R.C.O.P.No.1338 of 2017 to deposit the monthly rent and the same was allowed on 31.10.2018. The other allegations set out by the landlord was objected by the revision petitioner / tenant.

4. The Trial Court considered the issues with reference to the documents and evidences placed by the respective parties to the lis, made a finding that as per the evidence of PW1 and RW1, the respondent / landlord has established his bonafide requirement of the subject premises for his own use. The revision petitioner / tenant has not elicited any facts regarding the motive or mala fide intention on the part of the landlord to evict the revision petitioner / tenant from the premises. Accordingly, the R.C.O.P. was allowed and the revision petitioner / tenant was directed to vacate the premises within a period of two months.

5. The revision petitioner filed an Appeal in R.C.A.No.136 of 2020 and the Appellate Court considered the grounds raised by the revision petitioner / tenant. Before the Appellate Authority, no oral or documentary evidences were placed on either side and t