JUDGMENT - B.N. DESHMUKH, J. :---Heard counsel for both the sides. 2. This revision is filed by the landlord challenging the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as in appeal by the learned District Judge in the matter of eviction of respondent from the premises rented out to him. 3. The petitioner sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirements as he want to carry on his business as cloth merchant in the suit premises. The respondent, however, contended that the premises which are already in possession of the petitioner - landlord are sufficient for carrying on his business as cloth merchant. The respondent further contended that he being a medical practitioner carrying on his business at that place for several years because of which he had developed large number of clientage and if he is driven away from those premises, he is likely to suffer in his business. In short, he claimed that his goodwill will be lost if the tenant, who is the medical practitioner, is evicted from the suit premises. 4. It is true that both, the Rent Controller as well as the learned District Judge, Jalna, have found that the respondent-tenant is likely to suffer in his business if he is evicted from the suit premises. So also they have found that the premises which are in possession of the petitioner - landlord are sufficient for his business and there is no necessity to evict the respondent from the suit premises. 5. Shri Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner, further pointed out that the respondent-tenant has plot and building premises available for his business which is apparent from the oral testimony of the respondent-tenant. 6. The learned District Judge while disposing of the appeal filed by the present petitioner - landlord - has observed as follows : "It appears from the evidence of the respondent (i.e. the tenant) that he is doing medical practice since 1962. Dr. Kulkarni and before that Dr. Mathur were in possession of the disputed premises. They were residing there as tenants and practising there. He obtained the suit premises when Dr. Satyakumar Mathur vacated the same. He is residing near General Post Office, which is at a long distance from Jalna town. He has no any other source of income except the medical practice.... Mathur were in possession of the disputed premises. They were residing there as tenants and practising there. He obtained the suit premises when Dr. Satyakumar Mathur vacated the same. He is residing near General Post Office, which is at a long distance from Jalna town. He has no any other source of income except the medical practice.... It is very difficult for him to get any other premises to run his dispensary in the said locality. The persons from the said locality and the villagers are his patients. ....If he is (the respondent - tenant) evicted from the suit premises, then he will have to suffer loss of practice and clientage i.e. patients etc.". 7. While recording the findings in favour of the tenant the background in which the tenant will suffer was in the mind of the authorities below. The question of loss, hardship, availability of other premises is considered in the background of the profession of the respondent - tenant. The dominant feature of the finding is that the respondent, who is carrying on his medical practice for several years in the suit premises, will suffer loss in his profession because of likely loss of practice and clientage developed by him in the said locality for years together. 8. It is worthwhile to consider the provisions of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. On the question of hardship it is nowhere enunciated that loss of goodwill is required to be considered as a factor in the matter of eviction. If the loss of goodwill is to be one of the criteria to be considered in all matters of the cases filed against the professionals and businessmen, who are likely to suffer merely ground that on the if they are evicted from the said locality, they will suffer financially and loose their clientage, then there will be no eviction at all. Hardship as contemplated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Rent Act, in my opinion, does not include the loss which may be occasioned because of the loss of clientage or likely loss in the practice. 9. In this background, the question of the bonafides of the petitioner - landlord are considered by the authorities below and have found that the premises, which are already in possession of the landlord, are sufficient for carrying on his business as cloth merchant. 9. In this background, the question of the bonafides of the petitioner - landlord are considered by the authorities below and have found that the premises, which are already in possession of the landlord, are sufficient for carrying on his business as cloth merchant. The findings are, therefore, not only illegal but also perverse as the evidence on record is not properly appreciated. While recording the findings, the question of facts got low-down having regard to the plea of the respondent - tenant regarding his loss in practice. 10. The landlord has pointed out that the tenant has other premises available where he can easily shift. In his deposition the respondent has admitted that he has a house of his own in Jalna town. He has further stated that there are no plots in his name but he was required to admit that there are plots in a company of which he is the partner. The said company is wound up. He has further stated that there is one company of which he is the partner. These aspects of the matter are not taken into consideration while recording the finding regarding bona fide requirement and on the question of hardship. 11. The counsel for respondent has invited my attention in respect of revisional scope of this Court under section 26 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act. In (Chandmal v. Firm Ram Chandra)1, reported in (1991)3 S.C.C. 130 the scope of section 26 of the Hyderabad Rent Act is considered and it is held that illegality or material irregularity is a ground which can be considered while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In (Babhutmal v. Laxmibai)2, reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1297, the Supreme Court has considered the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India qua the findings recorded by the authorities under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. I am unable to appreciate as to how, on the basis of facts, the ratio laid down in these two cases applies in the present case. In Clause (c) of section 26 of the Act it is mentioned that a revision shall lie to the High Court on the following grounds, i.e., in following the procedure or passing the order, the original or appellate authority acted illegally or with material irregularity. 12. In Clause (c) of section 26 of the Act it is mentioned that a revision shall lie to the High Court on the following grounds, i.e., in following the procedure or passing the order, the original or appellate authority acted illegally or with material irregularity. 12. My attention was also invited to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in (Jagat Narian Srivastava v. Sita Ram Sharma and others)3, reported in 1977(1) R.C.J. 634 on the question of hardship to contend that while considering the question of hardship, one will have to take into account several factors, financial or otherwise. The fact of loss of practice is also required to be taken into account. The concept of goodwill, being the commercial concept might be involved in the context of trade-marks and other instances, in my opinion, is not relevant while considering the question of hardship under the provisions of the Rent Control Act which is a social legislation meant to protect the tenants under certain conditions. 13. In view of this, I feel that the application of the landlord for eviction is wrongly rejected. I set aside the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Jalna dated 11-1-1985 and the order passed in appeal by the learned District Judge, Jalna on 19-10-1988. The petitioner - landlord is entitled for eviction and possession of the suit premises. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *****