Judgment :- This civil revision petition is directed against an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming an order of the Rent Controller ordering eviction of the tenant petition filed by the landlord for his own use and occupation of the premises under Sec.10(3) (a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 2. The landlord (respondent herein) has filed the petition for eviction of the tenant (petitioner herein) on the ground that he is manufacturing safety matches in Sivakasi and he is business in safety matches throughout India and for his business in Tirunelveli he requires his petition premises for using it as a godown for storing safety matches. 3. The petition was opposed by the tenant on the ground that the premises is not required the landlord and his claim that he requires it for using it as a godown for storing matches is not bona fide and this claim of the landlord is a false one intended for the only purpose of evicting the tenant from the premises. 4. It appears the Rent Controller dismissed the landlord’s petition, but on appeal the was allowed and there was a revision petition filed in this Court in C.R.P.No.3614 of in that the learned single judge observed that from the records it is obvious that both have proceeded on the footing that the landlord need not prove bona fides for the purpose getting an order of eviction under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act but now it has been held Supreme Court in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. Mohan Lal Sowcar, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. that a landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from a non-residential premises under (a)(iii) of the Act, to succeed in his petition, should prove that he bona fide requires premises in addition to proving the other ingredients referred to in that sub-section, learned Judge remanded the matter for fresh disposal giving liberty to the parties to further evidence. 5. After this remand, it appears, both sides have adduced further evidence and consideration of the entire evidence the Rent Controller held that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation and therefore he ordered eviction. was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Against that the present civil revision petition is filed. 6. 5. After this remand, it appears, both sides have adduced further evidence and consideration of the entire evidence the Rent Controller held that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation and therefore he ordered eviction. was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Against that the present civil revision petition is filed. 6. It is now argued for the tenant-the petitioner herein, that for using a premises as a depot for storing safety matches one should obtain Municipal licences as well as excise licence, the landlord has not obtained any such licence and this would show that there is no fide in his claim. From the remand order of the learned single Judge it is seen that this point was argued before him, and it was also argued that the accountant of the landlord in fact deposed to the effect that Municipal licence and excise licence should be obtained the side of the landlord it was contended that there is no rule that requires licence either the municipal law or excise law. The learned Judge observed that: “If there is no rule actually any statement made by a witness with regard to the existence the rule cannot be of any use. If there is a rule that can be produced before the Court the court can act upon the basis that such a rule exists.” If there is any rule in the municipal law or the excise law that requires licence the tenant could have brought it to the notice of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller has expressly stated that no such rule was produced. Before the Appellate Authority also no such seems to have been produced. On the evidence on record both the courts below have that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. 7. Now in the revision, it is contended that there is a rule both in the municipal law excise law that requires licence. If that is the case why these rules have not been produced before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority? Therefore this contention of the tenant now in the revision cannot be countenanced. 8. 7. Now in the revision, it is contended that there is a rule both in the municipal law excise law that requires licence. If that is the case why these rules have not been produced before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority? Therefore this contention of the tenant now in the revision cannot be countenanced. 8. Further if actually there is any rule that requires municipal licence or excise licence and such licence was obtained by the landlord, from that alone it cannot be said that he does bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. I wonder how, refusing give possession to the landlord, the tenant can say that he (landlord) has not obtained municipal licence or excise licence for using the premises as depot for storing matches. The concurrent finding of the courts below that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation is a finding of fact and that cannot be interfered with in revision. In this view of the matter I find no merit in the civil revision petition. Hence dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed