JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal by the tenant from the judgment of the High Court setting aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and restoring that of the Rent Controller. The High Court allowed the landlord's petition for eviction of the appellant/tenant under section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and upheld the Rent Controller's finding that the landlord's requirement for additional space was bona fide. 2. It was contended by the landlord that his family having grown in size and the space available to him for residence and business being insufficient, he required additional space. The premises occupied by the tenant on the ground floor was essential for his business as well as residence. His sons who were studying came home during vacations and they had to be accommodated. His married daughter often visited her apparent with her family and stayed with them. His family consisted of himself and his. wife in addition to their six children including the married daughter. He had plans to expand his business in textiles and the premises on the ground floor were essential for such purposes. 3. The tenant in answer to the allegations of the landlord stated that his business too was flourishing and the premises in question were suited for the purpose. He denied that the landlord required additional accommodation either for his family or for his business. 4. The Rent Controller on an examination of the- allegations and evidence on either side, came to the conclusion that the requirements of the landlord were bona fide. For his growing family and expanding business, additional space was required. The landlord was justified in seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises in question. The Trial Court also stated that the tenant having been in the premises for a long number of years and having a flourishing business could easily find alternative accommodation in Madurai. The question of relative hardship was answered in favour of the landlord. 5. On an appeal by the tenant, the First Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller. The Authority held that the mere fact that the landlord had a number of children did not justify his demand for eviction of the tenant. The sons were admittedly studying in places outside Madurai and the daughter was married. 5. On an appeal by the tenant, the First Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller. The Authority held that the mere fact that the landlord had a number of children did not justify his demand for eviction of the tenant. The sons were admittedly studying in places outside Madurai and the daughter was married. Therefore the landlord and his wife did not required any additional space. He further held that the evidence on record did not indicate that the landlord's business was flourishing. His requirement for additional space was held to be not bona fide. 6. In revision before the High Court, it was held that the First Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the findings of the Rent Controller. Those findings were warranted by evidence. The High Court further found that the observations of the Appellate Authority that the requirement of the landlord for additional space was not justified because the sons were studying in places outside Madurai and the daughter was married and the business was not shown to be flourishing was an unjustifiable inference. 7. We agree with the High Court that the Appellate Authority was wrong in coming to the conclusions which it did. The finding of the Trial Court about the bona fide character of the requirement of the landlord for additional space both for residence and business is supported by cogent evidence. The observation of the Appellate Authority to the contrary is founded on wrong reasoning. The High Court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion which it did. Accordingly we see no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs.