Order: The landlady, who was successful in obtaining an order for eviction before the Rent Controller under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, but failed before the appellate authority, is the petitioner herein. 2. The petitioner is a doctor. After having passed M.B., B.S., in this country, she went to United States of America for getting higher qualifications and returned towards the end of 1979. Her husband is a qualified Engineer who also got higher qualifications in United States of America. The petitioner purchased the petition premises on 26-2-1980 under Ex.P.2 from the prior owner thereof. According to the petitioner, the purchase was made with a view to occupy the same for purpose of residence and also a clinic besides office of consultancy for the husband of the petitioner. The ground floor of the premises was vacant at the time when the petition was filed. The tenant 5th respondent herein was occupying the first floor. The 5th respondent was using it as his residence. It is not necessary to refer to the filing of an earlier eviction petition which was withdrawn later an account of some technical defects. The petitioner stated in the petitions for eviction that she was residing with her parents at No.25, Outer circular Road, Kilpauk Garden Colony,Madras-10 which is a few yards off the petition premises. It is stated that when the husband of the petitioner got employed in IIT, Madras, he was allotted quarters at D-1/100 Bonn Avenue, IIT, Madras-35 which was occupied by the petitioner and her husband in November, 1980. The petitioner stated that she was not in occupation of any residential building of her own in the city and that she required the first floor in the occupation of the tenant for the purpose of residence. According to her, the ground floor was being used as a clinic and that she was forced to keep it under lock and key as she could not use the same in view of the fact that she was residing in the quarters allotted to her husband and she found it very difficult to go to the clinic from the quarters of her husband. 3. 3. The petition was opposed by the tenant on the ground that the ground floor was a residential building and the petitioner having been in possession of the same, could not seek eviction of the tenant under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenant contested the claim of the petitioner that the ground floor was being used as a clinic and that’ it is non-residential building. The bona fide of the requirement of the petitioner was also contested by the tenant. The Rent Controller accepted the claim of the petitioner and ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority reversed the conclusion of the Rent Controller mainly on the ground that the ground floor was residential in character and the petitioner having admittedly been in possession of the ground floor could not seek eviction under Section 10 (3) (a) (i). It is that order of the Appellate Authority which is challenged in this revision petition. 4. The evidence on record proves that the conclusion of the Appellate Authority is correct on facts, Ex.P2 is a deed of sale under which the petitioner purchased the property. It described the vendor as residing at the petition premises viz., No.B.20, Kilpauk Garden Colony,Madras-10. In the statement of valuation attached to the sale deed under Rule 3 (i) of the Madras State (Prevention of Under Valuation of Stamp) Rules, 1968, the nature of the property is described to be residential building. Ex.R.1 is a letter, written by the petitioner on the same day on which she purchased the property under Ex.P.2. In that letter, she has given her address at the petition premises. It is significant to note that in the document under which she made the purchase on the same day, she had given her address as No.25.Outer Circular Road, Kilpauk, Garden Colony,Madras-10 which belonged to her parents. Immediately after the sale deed is completed, she writes a letter to the tenant under Es.R.1 in which she gives the petition premises as her address. Along with Ex.R.1, a draft rental agreement was sent by the petitioner to the tenant. In the draft rental agreement, she has given her residential address as D-20 (New No.21). Ground Floor, Outer Circular Road, Kilpauk Garden Colony,Madras-10. Thus she has expressly stated that the ground floor is her residence. Along with Ex.R.1, a draft rental agreement was sent by the petitioner to the tenant. In the draft rental agreement, she has given her residential address as D-20 (New No.21). Ground Floor, Outer Circular Road, Kilpauk Garden Colony,Madras-10. Thus she has expressly stated that the ground floor is her residence. Ex.R.2 is a letter dated 9-3-1980 written by the petitioner to the tenant. In that letter also she has given her address at the petition premises. Ex.R.3, dated 16-6-1980 is a letter written in hand by the petitioner. The ad- dress of the petitioner is given at the petition premises. The letter states that she is sending a key to the front gate and that the gate will remain locked after about 10.00 P.M. This letter shows that the petitioner has come to occupy the petition premises and that she informs the tenant that she would have the front gate locked at about 10.00 P.M. and in order to facilitate the opening of the gate and entering the premises, she has sent the key. Ex.R.4 is a letter dated 8-8-1980 written by the petitioner's husband to the t6nant and at the top of the letter, the mailing address is given as 25, Outer Circular Road, Kilpauk Garden Colony,Madras-10 that is the address of the petitioner's father. In the body of that letter it is stated that the attention of the tenant is drawn to an incidence that took place on August 5, 1980 at about 9.30 P.M. at the petition premises. It is seen from Ex. P.24, a diary maintained by the petitioner, that she gave birth to female child on 29-7-1980. According to her diary, she was on leave from 28-7-1980 onwards. In other words, she did not see any patient from 28-7-1980. On 31-7-1980, she has made an entry “Leave till September 1st”. That shows that the petitioner was not functioning as a doctor from 28-7-80 to 31-8-80 both days inclusive. If the petitioner was not functioning as a doctor in the premises and the husband of the petitioner, according to his own letter, was staying there at about 9.30 P.M. of August 5, 1980 there is nothing wrong in the inference that the husband was residing there, as the petitioner had given birth to a child she might have been in the hospital or in her parent's house. But this shows that the ground floor of the premises was being used for residential purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to give an explanation that the husband of the petitioner might have gone there to take his wife to the house from the clinic as it was late in the night. But the diary entries prove that the wife was not functioning as a doctor not only on that day but also till 31-8-1980. The petitioner has given evidence as P.W.2. She has stated that the timing of the clinic was 8.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. in the morning and 6.00 P.M. to 10.00 P.M. in the night. If the clinic was functioning till 10.00 P.M., then the door of the house could not have been closed at 9.30 P.M. The letter Ex.R.4 says that the door was closed and it was opened by the husband of the petitioner when the 5th respondent came down and knocked the door. There is also documentary evidence to show that the ground floor was being used for residential purposes by the vendor of the petitioner. Ex.R.12 is the invitation card for the Christening ceremony of the grand daughter of the vendor at the Madras Telugu Baptist Church on 6-3-1977 and for lunch at 12 noon at the residence of the vendor and the residence is described as B/20, K G Colony, Kilpauk,Madras-10 i.e., the petition premises. The invitation was received by the tenant and it was produced by the tenant and marked as Ex.R.12. 5. From the documentary evidence it is clear that the premises was being used as residential premises till the petitioner purchased and the documents which came into existence after the purchase of the petitioner also show that the premises is being used only as residential premises. Turning to the oral evidence, P.W.1, the husband of the petitioner, has deposed that he heard that the vendor was using the ground floor as a place of residence. He added that be heard so from his wife i.e., the petitioner. He has referred to Ex.P.2 in his evidence. He admits that Ex.P.2 describes the petition premises as a residential building. No attempt was made by him to explain why such a description was introduced in Ex.P.2, if really a part of the petition building was used for nonresidential purposes. He has referred to Ex.P.2 in his evidence. He admits that Ex.P.2 describes the petition premises as a residential building. No attempt was made by him to explain why such a description was introduced in Ex.P.2, if really a part of the petition building was used for nonresidential purposes. He has also deposed that at the time when the petition for eviction was filed his articles were in the petition premises. If the ground floor was used only for a clinic, the articles belonging to the petitioner's husband could not have been there. P.W.2 the petitioner, herself states in her evidence that there is no record to prove that the ground floor was being used by her vendor for purposes of a clinic though she asserts that the vendor had a clinic in the ground floor. She refers to Ex.R.1 and explains the address given therein by stating that she gave the address in order to establish her ownership of the premises. She added that she would have given the address of her parents if she had desired to give the address for communication purposes. This explanation is not acceptable. P.W.2 also admits that the electricity consumption charges were made on the basis of the domestic tariff and that she applied later for changing under the commercial tariff and she got an order there for. No such order has been produced before the Court. She states in the evidence that she does not remember as to when she got the order changing the domestic tariff into commercial tariff. 6. The evidence referred to above clearly shows that the ground floor of the petition building was being used only for residential purpose. It might be that the petitioner, as a doctor, might have entertained some patients and treated them when she was living there. The diary Ex.P.24 marked by the petitioner to support her case that she was having a clinic in the petition premises does not indicate anything. The only address given in the diary under “personal memoranda” is “25, Outer Circular Road, K.G. Colony, Madras600 010” which is the house belonging to her parents. There is no entry in the diary which could show that she was having a clinic in the petition premises. The only address given in the diary under “personal memoranda” is “25, Outer Circular Road, K.G. Colony, Madras600 010” which is the house belonging to her parents. There is no entry in the diary which could show that she was having a clinic in the petition premises. Even assuming that without residing there, she was using a portion of the premises or a room thereof for the purpose of meeting her clients in order to give them treatment or advise them as to the treatment to be taken, that would not convert the premises into a non-residential one. It is well known that a person having M.B., B.S., Degree and further qualifications can practise as a doctor with the aid of a medical kit bag containing thermometer, sphygmomanometer, stethoscope, knee-hammer, steriles syringes and a torch light. Keeping a medical kit bag in a room of the house will not convert the building into a non-residential one. To say that the ground floor was used as a clinic, the petitioner must have produced more evidence to prove that the ground floor was used as a sort of private hospital. Just because she was using it for seeing patients or allowing the patients to consult her, it would not convert the building into a non-residential one particularly when there is evidence to show that upto the date of purchase of the building, the building was used only for residential purpose. The burden is heavy on the petitioner to show that the state of affairs had changed after her purchase and that the building has been converted into a non-residential one. The presumption under Section 114 (d) of the Indian Evidence Act would certainly come into play. In this case, there is absolutely no - evidence to show that the petitioner converted the building into a clinic or a non-residential building. The fact that the ground floor was let out for non-residential purposes during the pendency of the proceedings will not alter the situation. 7. In view of the finding that the ground floor of the petition premises continued to be residential in character, the petition filed under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 23 of 1973 as amended is not maintainable. On that ground, it has to be dismissed. 7. In view of the finding that the ground floor of the petition premises continued to be residential in character, the petition filed under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 23 of 1973 as amended is not maintainable. On that ground, it has to be dismissed. In the view that I have taken, it is not necessary for me to go into the question whether the requirement of the petitioner is bona fide or not. As the petition for eviction is not sustainable, it is dismissed. 8. During the pendency of the civil revision petition, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.8456 of 1988 for directing the respondents to hand over possession of the petition premises to the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was alleged that the tenants have vacated the premises in February, 1987 and without surrendering the tenancy had kept the front door locked and taken the key with them in order to coerce the petitioner to yield to the unlawful demands of the tenants. It was stated that as nobody was occupying the premises since February, 1987, an order of eviction should follow. A counter-affidavit was filed by the tenant/5th respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Thereafter a reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Along with the reply affidavit, a copy of the electricity meter reading card for the first floor of the petition premises is produced. It is seen from the said card that no electricity was consumed between February, 1987 and April, 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the electricity meter reading card conclusively proves that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises since February, 1987. As the card was filed only along with the reply affidavit, I gave an opportunity to the tenants to file an affidavit to explain as to why no electricity was consumed during that period. The 5th respondent filed an affidavit in which it is stated that he used to leave the house for his shop at about 9.00 A.M. and would be back only late in the night and for the past 6 or 7 months his second child was sick and his wife goes to her parents' house in order to get some help for attending the child. He also stated that his parents were also sick and during night time, he and his wife would go to the house of his parents to attend on them. According to the counter-affidavit there was very little scope for using electricity and therefore, there was no consumption during eleven months. 9. The question whether the tenant has ceased to be in occupation of the premises cannot be gone into at this stage on the basis of the affidavit, reply affidavit and, counter affidavits. The parties will have to be allowed to let in further evidence on that question before any conclusion is arrived at. Since the tenants' cesser to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause is a separate ground for eviction under Section 10 (2) (vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which could form the subject matter of a separate eviction petition, that cannot be raised as an additional ground in this civil revision petition. It is open to the petitioner to institute a separate petition for eviction against the respondents under Section 10 (2) (vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act if she is so advised. It is also open to the petitioner to invoke the aid of Sec.10 (3) (c) of the Act, if so advised. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.