Judgment :- The civil revision petition itself is taken up for disposal by consent of parties. It arises out of a petition for eviction filed by the respondent under Ss. 10(2) (vii), 10(3) (a)(i) and 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 2. The petitioner contested the petition claiming that he had perfected title by adverse possession. He also contended that the requirement of the respondent was not bona fide. The Rent Controller held against the contentions raised by the petitioner and passed an order of eviction. On appeal, the petitioner raised a new contention that he was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Rural Artisans (Conferment of Ownership Kudiyiruppu) Act, 1976 (Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1976) as he was holding the land as a Kudiyiruppudar. That contention was negatived by the Appellate Authority and the order of eviction was confirmed. 3. In this Court, the same contentions which were put forward by the petitioner in the Courts below are repeated before me. Before dealing with the contentions, it is necessary to set out a few facts. 4. The petitioner was a tenant under one Asalambal who was represented by her Power Agent Sivaprakasam Pillai. She filed a suit in O.S. No. 357 of 1952. A decree was passed in that suit on the basis of a compromise on 17-3-1954. In that compromise it was agreed that the petitioner could continue to be in possession as a tenant in the suit property for a period of 25 years and that he shall pay the taxes due to the Panchayat Union and obtain receipts therefor. It was also agreed that he shall effect repairs which may be necessary to keep the house in good condition. It was further agreed that after the expiry of the period of 25 years, he shall hand over possession to the plaintiff. 5. After the expiry of the period of 25 years, the plaintiff prayed for recovery of possession in execution proceedings. She died during the pendency of the execution proceedings and, the respondent herein who was her legal representative came on record. The execution proceedings were contested by the petitioner herein on the ground that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act applied to him and that he should not be evicted excepting in proceedings taken under that Act. She died during the pendency of the execution proceedings and, the respondent herein who was her legal representative came on record. The execution proceedings were contested by the petitioner herein on the ground that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act applied to him and that he should not be evicted excepting in proceedings taken under that Act. That contention was accepted by the executing Court and the petition for execution was dismissed. The decree-holder was directed to take proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 6. It is only thereafter, the present proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The contention that the petitioner has perfected title by adverse possession is wholly unsustainable. The facts referred to already are sufficient to show that the petitioner's possession was never adverse to the owner of the building and that he was in possession only as a tenant. 7. The Courts below have concurrently found that the respondent's requirement of the building for her own occupation is bona fide and that the building requires immediate repairs and, therefore, the respondent should be put in possession. As the concurrent findings are supported by the evidence on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 8. The new contention put forward before the Appellate Authority that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1976 is a frivolous one. The facts referred to already will show that the petitioner is only a tenant of the building and that he cannot claim that he was occupying the land as a kudiyiruppudar. The subject matter of the demise is not a 'kudiyiruppu' as defined by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1976. Kudiyiruppu is defined as the site of a dwelling house or hut. Here, under the compromise decree, the petitioner became a tenant of the building and he is not a tenant of the site alone. 9. Apart from that, Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1976 defines a 'tenant' as a person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being allowed to enjoy the land of another under a tenancy agreement. That also shows that the subject-matter of the tenancy should be a land in order to enable a person to invoke the benefits of the Act. That also shows that the subject-matter of the tenancy should be a land in order to enable a person to invoke the benefits of the Act. In the present case, the subject-matter is not a 'kudiyiruppu' as it is not a land but it is only a building. Consequently, the petitioner is not a tenant as defined by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1976. 10. In the circumstances, all the contentions put forward by the petitioner are rejected. The order of eviction passed by the Courts below is upheld. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.