ORDER

The Civil Revision is directed against the order passed in R.C.A.No.

15 of 2018, dated 02.07.2019 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P No. 208 of 2009, dated 28.11.2017, on the file of the Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town.

2. Admittedly, the revision petitioner/ appellant / respondent is the tenant and the first respondent / petitioner is the land lord. After filing of the eviction petition, the first respondent / land lord had died and the second respondent / second petitioner, who is the son of the first respondent / land lord has been prosecuting the case. The respondents have filed a petition in R.C.O.P No. 208 of 2009, against the revision petitioner, claiming eviction on the grounds of willful default in payment of rent under Section 10 (2) (i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for additional accomodation under Section 10 (3) (c) and for different user under Section 10 (2) (ii) (b) of the said Act.

3. During trial before the Rent Controller, the respondents have examined the second respondent as PW-1 and exhibited 16 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. The revision petitioner / tenant has examined herself as RW-1 and exhibited 5 documents as Ex.R1 to R5.

4. The learned Rent Controller, upon considering the evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides, has passed an order, dated 28.11.2017, allowing the petition and ordered eviction on the grounds of willful default in payment of rent and additional accomodation, but rejected the ground of different user and thereby, directed the revision petitioner to vacate the petition mentioned premises and handover the vacant possession of the same to the second petitioner within a period of two months. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the tenant has filed an appeal in R.C.A No. 15 of 2018, and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, upon considering the materials placed and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order, dated 02.07.2019, dismissing the Rent Control Appeal and thereby, confirming the eviction order passed in R.C.O.P No. 208 of 2009, dated 28.11.2017. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the tenant has come forward with the present revision.

5. As already pointed out, the tenant alone has challenged the order of eviction passed on the grounds of willful default in payment of rent and additional accomodation and since the appeal was dismissed, he has preferred the present revision.

The points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the findings of the Courts below that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent are proper in accordance with law.

(ii) Whether the Courts below erred in deciding that the requirement of the petition mentioned premises for additional accomodation of the land lord is bonafide ?

6. It is pertinent to mention that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is confined to legality, propriety and correctness of the orders of the Courts below. No doubt, the power under Section 25 of the said Act, is wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the said Act, should not act as if it was exercising the Appellate jurisdiction, by appreciating the evidence, weigh the same and by that process, come to a different conclusion and reverse a finding of the fact arrived at by the Courts below. Even if two views are possible with the same set of facts, the revisional Court cannot substitute its own view so as to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. It is pertinent to mention that the power under Section 25 of the said Act is not co-extensive with the power of the appellate Court. Bearing the above legal position in mind, let us consider the case on hand.

7. It is not in dispute that