Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pollachi. He sought eviction of the respondent-tenant, hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenant’, on two grounds, that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent subsequent to May, 1980 and that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation. The tenant was originally in occupation of one portion of the petition scheduled property. Later he occupied the other portion of the petition scheduled property. 2. The application was resisted by the tenant who inter alia contended that he has not committed wilful default and that the requirement by the landlord of the premises is not bona fide. In regard to occupation of the other portion of the premises, while admitting he occupied the other portion, he would say that it is not unauthorised occupation. The Rent Controller found that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of Rent and that the requirement of the premises by the landlord is bona fide and in the end, ordered eviction. The tenant appealed and in the appeal, the appellate authority agreed with the Rent Controller and held that the default in the payment of rent was wilful and that the requirement of the petition scheduled property by the landlord, is not bona fide. But however, the appellate authority allowed the appeal notwithstanding his finding that the tenant has committed wilful default. That was on the ground that the petition is not maintainable as the portion in the occupation of the tenant has not been specifically described and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the portion now occupied by the tenant. The landlord has filed this revision. 3. Both the tribunals have concurrently found that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent. This concurrent finding is based on evidence. This finding will be binding in revision and the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under S. 25 of the Rent Control Act, cannot ‘touch’ this concurrent finding on facts based on evidence. If authority is needed for that proposition, it has to be found in the decision Rajalakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangasami 1. 4. This concurrent finding is based on evidence. This finding will be binding in revision and the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under S. 25 of the Rent Control Act, cannot ‘touch’ this concurrent finding on facts based on evidence. If authority is needed for that proposition, it has to be found in the decision Rajalakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangasami 1. 4. The next point that requires consideration is whether the premises is required by the landlord bona fide for his own use and occupation. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the premises is required by the landlord bona fide for his own use and occupation. The appellate authority reversed that finding. The case of the landlord is that he is doing contract work in Tiruchirapalli and that he requires the petition scheduled premises for educating his children. The learned appellate authority says that for education, Tiruchirapalli will be a better place than Valparai. The landlord is a contractor in a Church in Tiruchirapalli. There is no evidence whether the contract work is completed and whether he has returned to Valparai. In such circumstances, I agree with the findings of the appellate authority that the requirement of the premises by the landlord is not bona fide. 5. The more important question is whether the petition ii not maintainable, as according to the respondent there is no relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the portion of the premises which he is now in occupation. The respondent admits his possession of the portion of the premises and he would say in his counter affidavit that “he had not occupied the other portion without the permission of the petitioner.” This contention of the tenant found favour with the appellate authority who held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the portions now in occupation of the tenant and that therefore, the petition itself is net maintainable. It is necessary to find out whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner and the respondent. According to the learned counsel Mr. S.K.L. Ratan, the premises which has been occupied by the lessee, was annexed by the lessee by way of encroachment and that the landlord has treated the respondent a s a tenant in respect of both the portions of the petition scheduled property. According to the learned counsel Mr. S.K.L. Ratan, the premises which has been occupied by the lessee, was annexed by the lessee by way of encroachment and that the landlord has treated the respondent a s a tenant in respect of both the portions of the petition scheduled property. It is no doubt true that the tenant in bis counter affidavit says that the occupation was not unauthorised. But assuming that it was authorised occupation, the respondent will no doubt be a tenant under the landlord. Learned author Mulla on “the Transfer of Property Act”, 7th Edition dealing with S. 108 at page 691 observes:— “If the lessee encroaches upon adjoining land and acquires title thereto by prescription, he must surrender the land to the lessor at the expiry of the term whether the land be waste land or land of stranger. The true presumption is that the land so encroached upon is added to the tenure and forms part thereof for the benefit of the tenant so long as the original holding continues, and afterwards for the benefit of the landlord. If the land of the lessor is encroached upon, the lessor may of course, eject the lessee before he has acquired a prescriptive title. ..” He invited my attention to a decision in J.F. Perrott & Co., Ltd. v. Cohen 1 . In that case, the Court of Appeal took the view that if a lessee encroaches the property, the property encroached upon must be treated as part of the demised premises and the lessee must repair it under the covenant to repair. In this case, even assuming that the tenant was authorised by the landlord to occupy the other portion adjoining the premises demised, it must be taken that the landlord by his conduct represents to the tenant that the portion which he occupies under his permission, is also included in the demised portion and it must also be taken that the tenant acts on that representation by using the adjoining property as part of the demised premises. It is therefore manifest that the portion now in the occupation of the tenant whether with the permission of the landlord or without his permission, must be treated as part of the demised premises and the landlord can sue the tenant for eviction from that portion which the tenant has occupied. It is therefore manifest that the portion now in the occupation of the tenant whether with the permission of the landlord or without his permission, must be treated as part of the demised premises and the landlord can sue the tenant for eviction from that portion which the tenant has occupied. There is, therefore no impediment to hold that the relation of landlord and tenant continues. Under such circumstances, the petition filed by the landlord to evict the tenant on grounds of wilful default and on the ground that the premises is required for his own use and occupation, is perfectly maintainable. The Judgment of the appellate authority holding that the petition is not maintainable is wrong and has to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The revision is allowed, the judgment of the appellate authority is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller is restored. No costs. 6. The tenant is granted one months time from this date to vacate the premises.