ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.2016 passed in R.C.A. No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, thereby confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 16.11.2006 made in RCOP No.3 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Villupuram, thereby dismissing the petition filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default and own occupation.

2. The petitioner filed an eviction petition on the ground of wilful default and own occupation. The petition premises is owned by the petitioner. The respondent was inducted as tenant and the rent was fixed at Rs.600/- for the petition premises. The petition premises is for commercial purpose and non-residential use. According to the petitioner, from 01.04.1993 to February 1994, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as advance. Subsequently, the petitioner required the petition premises and requested the respondent to vacate the premises. Though the respondent assured to vacate the premises, he failed to vacate the same. Thereafter, the petitioner raised the rent and enhanced it from Rs.600/- to Rs.800/- and finally Rs.1200/- during the month of May 2002. The respondent also paid an advance of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the petition premises for want of his own use to conduct business. When the petitioner insisted the respondent to vacate the premises as assured, the respondent asked for Pagadi to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Again the petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the premises for the purpose to start up a business for his son.

3. While being so, the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of

2006 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from vacating the respondent without due process of law. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition to direct the respondent to vacate the petition premises and deliver vacant possession of the property. The respondent filed a counter stating that so far as he paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and enhanced rent was also paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and Rs.5,000/- as rent which was not agreed to be paid by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner and his henchman attempted to vacate the respondent from the petition premises. Therefore, the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.26 of 2006 and obtained interim order of injunction. Insofar as the own occupation is concerned, the adjacent shops are vacant and as such, the petitioner can very well start up his business in the vacant shop. The petition premises is the only livelihood of the respondent.

4. On the side of the petitioner, he had examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. On the side of respondent, R.W.1 was examined and marked R1 to R10.

5. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller observed that the petitioner failed to prove any arrear of rent and also recorded the respondent paid advance amount and it is lying with the petitioner. Insofar as the own occupation is concerned, the son of the petitioner is a BCA graduate and the business of grocery shop is not suitable for him. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the RCOP. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent, being the tenant, cannot dictate any terms to the landlord. The landlord had chosen the particular shop for his own business. Though the petitioner proved his bonofide requirements, the Court below, without considering the same, mechanically dismissed the petition on the ground that the son of the petitioner cannot to do the business of grocery shop