Judgment :- This civil revision petition is filed by the landlord in rent control proceedings the judgment of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.1196 of 1983, on the file of the Small Causes (IV Judge), Madras, confirming the order of the Rent Controller, R.C.O.P.No.3387 of 1982. 2. Brief facts are the following: The petitioner is the owner of No.70, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, is now in dispute. In said premises, apart from the respondent, there are other tenants. The respondent paying a monthly rent of Rs.300 excluding electric charges. The relevant averments in the petition for read as follows: “ The petitioner is carrying on business in Javuli and other business under the name and of ‘ Mahadeva Iyer and Sons ’ at No.12, Big Bazaar Street, Koothanallur Post, Thanjavur District. The business is flourishing well. The petitioner has decided to open a branch Madras and is making arrangements for the same. ... ... ... The petitioner does not own any other building except the building in the occupation respondent and situated in No.70, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Madras-24, which occupation of the respondent. The petitioner requires the premises in his occupation respondent for the purpose of the business he is carrying on.” 3. The respondent resisted the eviction petition contending inter alia as follows: “ The respondent again submits that admittedly the petitioner is not carrying on business the City of Madras either in any rented building or in any other building not belonging petitioner. He only intends to open a Branch at Madras. Such a claim will not fall within application of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. ... ... ... The landlord is not entitled to file a petition for eviction against the tenant stating that a business somewhere in the North or South of India and, therefore, he wants to Branch in all cities available in India or in Tamil Nadu. Such a claim is opposed to the provisions of the Act especially requirement contained in Sec.10(a)(3)(iii) of the Act. ... ... ... The oblique motive of the petitioner is to get enhanced rent of Rs.1,000 per month advance rent of Rs.10,000 free of interest which was refused by the respondent, as totally unbelievable. Therefore, the false petition is filed by the petitioner pointing most frivolous and false and unsustainable claims.” 4. ... ... ... The oblique motive of the petitioner is to get enhanced rent of Rs.1,000 per month advance rent of Rs.10,000 free of interest which was refused by the respondent, as totally unbelievable. Therefore, the false petition is filed by the petitioner pointing most frivolous and false and unsustainable claims.” 4. Before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner ’ s son was examined as P.W.I and 1 to P-5 were also marked. On the side of the respondent, one of the partners was as R.W.1. Exs.R-l and R-2 were also marked on the respondent’s side. 5. The learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of the pleadings, evidence both documentary and the arguments of the counsel on both sides, found that none of the to P-5 indicates that the petitioner has made any preparation to start a branch business Madras, that the petitioner has not made any arrangement for opening a branch Madras, that though there is no written demand of enhanced rent, the fact that the other tenants have been increased recently whereas the respondent is paying the old rent for the past several years which shows that the petitioner’s real intention somehow to evict the respondent and let out the premises for higher rent, and requirement of the petitioner in respect of the premises for starting his branch office textile business is not bona fide. On those findings, the learned Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the dismissal of the eviction petition R.C.A.No.1195 of 1983. 7. The appellate authority, on a re-appreciation of the evidence and after hearing the on both sides, also held that no preparation has been made and that it is only at the intention to start a branch at Madras and that, therefore, the petition under Sec.10(3) (iii) of the Act is not maintainable in view of the decision in M/s.Gillanders Arbuthnot Ltd. v. M/s. V.I.Bahdrunissa, 95 L.W. 144, that the appellant before it was very particular have enhancement of rent for the portion in the occupation of the respondent and view to let out the premises for a higher rent, the petition for eviction was filed and requirement of the landlord was not bona fide, and consequently the Appellate confirmed the dismissal of the eviction petition, by dismissing the appeal. 8. It is under the above circumstances, the present C.R.P., has been filed. 9. 8. It is under the above circumstances, the present C.R.P., has been filed. 9. Mr.M.R.Narayanaswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, elaborate arguments, mainly concentrated to attack the finding of the Authorities which held that the petition under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was not maintainable. According to the learned senior counsel, the Authorities below went wrong in thinking that Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act can be invoked only when the landlord is carrying on a business in a city, town or village in a premises while in same city, town or village, he owns a premises in which somebody carrying on business. In other words, according to the learned counsel, even if the landlord carrying on business only in a place other than the city, town or village in which the tenant carrying on business in the premises belonging to the landlord, he can invoke Sec.10(3)(a) (iii) of the Act. On the admitted fact that the petitioner is already carrying on the business textiles at Koothanallur and wants to carry on business at Madras by opening a branch portion of the non-residential building of his own, but in the occupation of the tenant/ respondent can move the Rent Controller under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, is the contention of the learned senior counsel. In support of that, he placed reliance on several judgments. also argued about the meaning to be given to the words "is carrying on" occurring in (3)(a)(iii) of the Act. 10. Mr.Unni Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant, with vehemence, contended that this Court, sitting in revision, will not interfere with concurrent findings of the authorities below on facts. According to the learned counsel for respondent, the Authorities below having given concurrent findings on the bona fides landlord, this Court will not replace these findings by coming to a different conclusion. this, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sri Rojalakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1253. On the scope of Sec.10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Act, to contend contra, he also equally placed reliance on numerous decisions. 11. this, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.Sri Rojalakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1253. On the scope of Sec.10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Act, to contend contra, he also equally placed reliance on numerous decisions. 11. After going through the arguments, I am of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the finding of the Authorities below on the question of fides being a concurrent one, cannot be interfered with in the light of the ratio laid down the Supreme Court in M/s.Sri Rajalakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1253, is well founded and if that be so, other question need not be into. We have seen that both the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority concurrently held that the requirement of the landlord was not bona fide on the ground the petition under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was filed with an oblique motive of getting enhanced rent and also a fabulous advance. It is now beyond doubt that even for purpose of a petition under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the question of bona fides important role. Vide the decision in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B.Mohan Lal Sowcar, 1988 S.C. 1060. 12. In Mls.Sri Rajalakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Ranagaswamy Chettiar, A.I.R S.C. 1253, the Supreme Court, while interpreting the scope and ambit of Sec.25 of the has categorically held as follows: "....The language of Sec.25 is indeed very wide. But we must attach some significance to circumstance that both the expressions ‘appeal’ and ‘revision’ are employed in the statute. Quite obviously, the expression ‘revision’ is meant to convey the idea of a much narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression ‘appeal’. In fact, it has to be noticed under Sec.25 the High Court calls for and examines the record of the appellate authority order to satisfy itself. The dominant idea conveyed by the incorporation of the words satisfy itself under Sec.25 appears to be that the power conferred on the High Court Sec.25 is essentially a power of superintendence. Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Sec.25 the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of merely because it does not agree with the findings of the subordinate authority. Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Sec.25 the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of merely because it does not agree with the findings of the subordinate authority. The power conferred on the High Court under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in the words of Untwalia, J., in Dattondant Gopal Vithalrao Marutirao, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1111: (1975)2 S.C.C. 246 . "It is not wide enough make the High Court a second Court of first appeal". Some argument was advanced whether a finding as to the bona fide requirement landlord is not a mixed question of fact and law. Reference was made to Madan Lal v. Dass Berry, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 585: (1972)2 S.C.J. 509: (1971)2 S.C.C. 535 , and Kamla v. Rup Lal Mehra, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 186, on the one hand and T.B.Ganate v. Nemi Chand, 1966M.P.LJ. 28, and Matmlal v. Radhe Lal, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1596, on the other hand. We do not think it is necessary for the purposes of this enter into a discussion of this question. Merely to hold that a question is a mixed question fact and law is not sufficient to warrant the exercise of revisional power. It must, however, be shown that there was a taint of such unreasonableness resulting in a miscarriage justice. A concurrent finding, based on evidence, that the landlord did not bona fide the premises for his own use and occupation is not in our view a finding which touched by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960." The above ruling directly applies to the facts of this case. On that ground, I dismiss the revision petition. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.