Judgment :- The respondents in R.C.O.P.No.668 of 1985 are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P. 2. The petitioner filed the R.C.O.P. for eviction against the respondents under Sec.l0(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter the Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The first respondent is the tenant of petitioner in respect of two rooms, one hall, verandah-cum-kitchen, bath room etc., in front portion of the building bearing door No.24, Thoppa Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras 13 on a monthly rental of Rs.200. The second respondent is in occupation of two rooms, hall and verandah in the rear portion on a monthly rental of Rs.160. The petitioners husband is in Singapore, Malacca and Malaysia and he has decided to leave Singapore, Malacca Malaysia once and for all and to settle down in Madras. The petitioner’s mother about 90 years old and the petitioner along with her mother-in-law and her matured daughter is residing in Avoor village. The petitioner’s daughter has to be married and prospects of getting good alliance will be bright if the petitioner settles down in Madras with her daughter. Further the petitioner is a sick person and she needs immediate treatment in Madras. The petitioner’s son is an Automobile Engineer and he wants to set his business in Madras City near the petition mentioned premises. The petitioner requires portions in the occupation of the respondents for her own occupation and the occupation the members of her family. The petitioner’s requirement of the petition mentioned premises for her own occupation and for the occupation of the members of her family is bona fide. 3. The respondents resisted the application for eviction contending as follows: There absolutely no necessity for the petitioner and her mother-in-law for leaving the village for coming over to Madras. The entire upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building in the occupation of the petitioner. If the petitioner desires to live with her husband mother-in-law she can always do so in the upstairs portion of the building in question petitioner’s requirement of the portions in the occupation of the respondents for her own is not bona fide. The entire upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building in the occupation of the petitioner. If the petitioner desires to live with her husband mother-in-law she can always do so in the upstairs portion of the building in question petitioner’s requirement of the portions in the occupation of the respondents for her own is not bona fide. The petition filed under Sec.l0(3)(a)(i) of the Act is not maintainable, because the petitioner is already in occupation of a portion of the premises viz., first floor of the premises. 4. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the respondents and dismissed the petition eviction. As against the order of the Rent Controller the petitioner filed an appeal R.C.A.No.414 of 1988 before the Appellate Authority (8th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The Appellate Authority on a consideration of the entire evidence on record came the conclusion that the petitioner’s requirement of the demised portions for her occupation bona fide. Consequently the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Appellate Authority the respondents have preferred present civil revision petition. 5. Mr.Kishore, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that admittedly upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building is vacant; the petitioner has not given any reason for not occupying the upstairs portion and, therefore, the petitioner requirement of the demised portions for her occupation and the occupation of the members of the family is not bona fide. The question we have to examine in this civil revision petition is, whether the petitioner’s requirement of the demised portions for her occupation and occupation of the members of her family is bona fide. P.W.I, is the power of attorney agent of the petitioner and who happens to be her husband’s brother. The question we have to examine in this civil revision petition is, whether the petitioner’s requirement of the demised portions for her occupation and occupation of the members of her family is bona fide. P.W.I, is the power of attorney agent of the petitioner and who happens to be her husband’s brother. He has stated in evidence that the petitioner’s husband, who is carrying on the business in Singapore decided to wind up his business at Singapore and to come down to Madras to settle down Madras permanently along with the other members of his family, the petitioner’s mother law is 93 years old and as she is not keeping good health, she has come down to Madras and is living with petitioner at door No.93, Thoppa Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras-13; that the said No.93, Thoppa Mudali Street, which is in the occupation of the petitioner, her mother and daughter does not belong to the petitioner; the petitioner’s son is ,an automobile engineer and the petitioner wants to set up a business for her son in Madras Citythose circumstances, the petitioner’s requirement of the demised portions for occupation and for the occupation of the members of his family is bona fide. Ex.P are the letters received by the petitioner and Ex.P-9 series go to show that the petitioner, the time of hearing of the R.C.O.P., was living at door No.93, Thoppa Mudali Royapuram, Madras-13. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend value can be attached to Ex.P-9 series because they came into existence during pendency of the proceedings. I am unable to accept the said contention of the counsel for the respondents. Before the Appellate Authority the petitioner filed M.P.No.270 1989 requesting the Appellate Authority to receive a relation card issued to thethe certificate issued to the petitioner’s daughter by Dr.Ratnavel Subramaniam Girls Secondary School, Muthialpet, Madras-1, the community certificate issued to the petitioner daughter and the certificate issued by the bank to show that the petitioner after filing R.C.O.P. for eviction has permanently settled down in Madras. The Appellate dismissed the petition M.P.No.270 of 1989. The Appellate Authority, committed an dismissing the petition to receive the documents referred to above as additional particularly when the Appellate Authority found it necessary to refer to those documents coming to the conclusion that the petitioner’s requirement of the demised portions own occupation is bona fide. 6. The Appellate dismissed the petition M.P.No.270 of 1989. The Appellate Authority, committed an dismissing the petition to receive the documents referred to above as additional particularly when the Appellate Authority found it necessary to refer to those documents coming to the conclusion that the petitioner’s requirement of the demised portions own occupation is bona fide. 6. The petitioner has filed an application C.M.P.No.6440 of 1990 in this civil revision seeking permission to receive (a) xerox copies of the first two pages of the record botany, pathology and physics for the academic year 1989-90 submitted by petitioner daughter duly authenticated and counter-signed by the External Examiner and Principal School viz., Dr.Ratnavel Subramaniam Girls’ Higher Secondary School, Madras-1, (b)copy of the hall ticket issued by the said school, to petitioner’s daughter; (c) Xerox the card received by the petitioner’s daughter A.Thahira Banu showing that promoted to 12th Standard in 1989 and (d) ration card as additional evidence in revision petition. The documents referred above relate to certain subsequent events this Court can take into consideration for deciding the question whether the petitioner requirement of the demised portions for her own occupation and the occupation members of her family is bona fide. This court can take into consideration the subsequent events in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M/s. Variety Emporium V.R.M.Mohd. Ibrahim Naina, (1985)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 1. The documents referred to above filed as additional evidence are necessary for deciding the question involved in revision petition. Mr.Kishore, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposed application to receive the documents as additional evidence in the civil revision contending that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable proceedings under the Act and the petition to receive documents as additional evidence the civil revision petition filed under Sec.25 of the Act is not maintainable. There is in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. Mr.Krishnamurthi Textiles, (1981)1 M.L.J. 394 , this court has held that the provisions of the Civil Code are applicable to the revision petition filed before this court under Sec.25 of The above decision has been subsequently approved by the Division Bench of this Arya Vaisya Samajam v. Murugesa Mudaliar, 1990 T.L.NJ. 82. Mr.Krishnamurthi Textiles, (1981)1 M.L.J. 394 , this court has held that the provisions of the Civil Code are applicable to the revision petition filed before this court under Sec.25 of The above decision has been subsequently approved by the Division Bench of this Arya Vaisya Samajam v. Murugesa Mudaliar, 1990 T.L.NJ. 82. In view of the above position, it has to be held that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable the revision petition filed before this Court under Sec.25 of the Act. From this it follows a petition filed under O.41, Rule 27, C.P.C., to receive documents as additional documents the revision petition filed under Sec.25 of the Act is maintainable and the documents received as additional evidence provided the requirements of O.41, Rule.27, C.P.C., satisfied. In this case, as already pointed out, the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence necessary for deciding the issue involved in this case. As a matter of fact, the petitioner produced the very same documents before the Appellate Authority by filing a petition M.P.No.270 of 1989 to receive them as additional evidence and the Appellate though it referred to those documents produced as additional evidence while deciding R.C.A committed an error in rejecting the application to receive additional evidence. circumstances, C.M.P.No.6440 of 1990 is allowed and the documents mentioned therein received as additional evidence in this civil revision petition. 7. The petitioner has produced (a) xerox copies of the first two pages of the record botany, zoology, pathology and physics for the academic year 1989-90 submitted petitioner’s daughter duly authenticated and countersigned by the External Examiner Principal of the School viz., Dr.Ratnavel Subramaniam Girls Higher Secondary Madras-1.(b) xerox copy of the hall ticket issued by the said school to the petitioner daughter Thahira Banu, (c) xerox copy of the card showing that the petitioner ’ Thahira Banu was promoted to 12th standard in the year 1989. The above documents show that the petitioner’s daughter is studying in Dr.Ratnavel Subramaniam Girls Secondary School, Madras-1. The petitioner has also produced the ration card to show the petitioner is now living in the house bearing door No.30, Thoppa Mudali Street, 13 along with the other members of her family. The above documents show that the petitioner’s daughter is studying in Dr.Ratnavel Subramaniam Girls Secondary School, Madras-1. The petitioner has also produced the ration card to show the petitioner is now living in the house bearing door No.30, Thoppa Mudali Street, 13 along with the other members of her family. Ex.P-9 series and the documents as additional evidence go to show that the petitioner along with her son, daughter mother-in-law has come down from the village Avoor and settled down at Madras house bearing door No.30, Thoppa Mudali Street, Madras-13. The specific case petitioner is that except the petition mentioned building she does not own any residential house in the city of Madras. The respondents have not produced any document show that the petitioner is occupying a house of her own in Madras. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the evidence of P.W.I that the upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building is kept vacant by the and the fact that the petitioner is keeping the upstairs portion vacant shows requirement of the demised portions for her occupation is not bona fide. In support contention the learned counsel for the respondents relies on the decision in Amarjit v.Khatoon Quamarain, A.I.R.1987S.C.741: (1986)4 S.C.C. 736 . I am unable to accept above contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly the mother the petitioner, who is living with the petitioner is aged 93 years and the case of the is that because of the old age of the mother-in-law of the petitioner, she is not in a to occupy the upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building. The above reason the petitioner’s counsel for the petitioner not occupying the first floor portion of the mentioned building is valid and deserves acceptance. Therefore, the petitioner has got reason for not occupying the first floor portion of the petition mentioned building. Gopal v. Subramaniam, (1976)2 M.L.J. 13 (S.N.), this court, dealing with a similar observed as follows: “The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act states that if the landlord occupation of a building of his own, then, the bar to apply for eviction of a tenant in building of his own would come for adjudication. A building may be kept vacant for reasons. It may be for the reason that it is unfit for occupation. It may be for sentimental reasons and for other causes. A building may be kept vacant for reasons. It may be for the reason that it is unfit for occupation. It may be for sentimental reasons and for other causes. It is now well established in our court at any rate that for the tenant to dictate as to which of the houses of the landlord should be asked own use and occupation. Unless it is established that the landlord is physically in possession of a building of his own, it would be idle to contend that he is in occupation of a building.” The evidence of P.W.I shows that the petitioner is prepared to give the first floor portion the petition mentioned building to the respondents for their occupation if they vacate portions in the ground floor. Even during the course of the arguments in the civil petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner made it clear before this court that even now the petitioner is willing to offer the upstairs portion of the mentioned building to the respondents provided they vacated the ground floor portions their occupation. This offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner only goes to that the petitioner has valid reasons for not occupying the first floor portion of the mentioned building and the requirement of the ground floor portion for her own occupation and for the occupation of the members of her family is bona fide. The principles laid down the Supreme Court in Amarjit Singh v. Khatoon Quamarain, A.I.R. 1987S.C. 741: S.C.C. 736, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents have no application facts of the present case, because, the petitioner in this case is keeping the first floor vacant long before the filing of the R.C.O.P. and she gives a valid reason for not occupying the first floor portion viz., the petitioner’s mother-in-law is aged 93 years and she is not position to occupy the first floor portion. 9. As already referred to, the evidence in this case discloses that the petitioner’s mother law is aged 93 years and the petitioner has settled down at Madras from the village along with her mother-in-law for giving her treatment in Madras, for searching a match for her daughter and for setting up a business for her son in Madras. The this case also discloses that the petitioner’s daughter is studying in Subramaniam Girls Higher Secondary School, Madras-1. The this case also discloses that the petitioner’s daughter is studying in Subramaniam Girls Higher Secondary School, Madras-1. and the petitioner along members of her family are living in the house bearing door No.30, Thoppa Mudali Royapuram, Madras-13, which does not belong to the petitioner. There is further this case to show that the petitioner’s husband is also planning to wind up his Singapore and to settle down in Madras along with the other members of his family. of the evidence available in this case as referred to above, it has to be held petitioner’s requirement of the demised portions for her occupation and for the occupation the members of her family is bonafide. On the basis of the evidence available in this Appellate Authority rightly held that the petitioner’s requirement of the demised her own occupation and for the occupation of the members of her family is bona is no infirmity in the finding of the Appellate Authority. There are no merits in revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision is dismissed. No costs. 10. After the pronouncement of the orders in the C.R.P. today. Mr.H.Kishore, the counsel for the petitioners (Tenants) requests six months time to enable the (tenants) to vacate the premises. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances the case, the petitioners (tenants) are granted four months time for vacating the premises condition that they file an affidavit before this court within four weeks undertaking the premises after the expiry of the period of four months referred above. R.S. ---- Petition dismissed.