Judgment : The tenant is the petitioner. He has suffered an order of eviction at the hands of the appellate authority though he was successful before the Rent Controller. The respondents have filed the petition for eviction under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(3)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for wilful default in payment of rent and for own occupation for the business of the respondents. The ground of wilful default is no longer in issue before me. The courts below have found against the landlords on that issue. 2. As regards the requirement for own occupation, the case of the petitioner is that he is running a typewriting as well as a commercial institute recognised by the Government and under the provisions of Sec.l0(4)(ii) of the Act the petition for eviction is not maintainable. The appellate authority has rejected the said contention of the tenant on the ground that the document produced by it, viz., Ex.B-1 to prove the recognition granted by the Government is an incomplete one and no reliance can be placed thereon. The appellate authority has rejected the material evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner and held that the petitioner has not proved its entitlement to the benefits of Sec.l0(4)(ii) of the Act. No doubt, the appellate authority has also observed that the typewriting institute is not an “educational institution” within the meaning of the section. That view is clearly erroneous in the context in which the expression “educational institution” appears in the section. It will certainly include a typewriting institute as well as commercial institute. 3. Ex.B-1 shows that it is a part of a Government order. Obviously it is the first page of the Government order. According to the said page, the institute of the petitioner is permitted to give training on commercial lessons bearing Index Nos. 1, 2, 21 and 22 in the said subjects. The register number for the institute is given as 40142. There appears a seal affixed by the Director of Technical Education with the date 15. 1981. It is expressly mentioned therein that it is an order only for the year 1981. Further it refers to the conditions found in the annexure to the same. The register number for the institute is given as 40142. There appears a seal affixed by the Director of Technical Education with the date 15. 1981. It is expressly mentioned therein that it is an order only for the year 1981. Further it refers to the conditions found in the annexure to the same. But the petitioner has not chosen to produce the remaining part of the document, thus, depriving the court of the opportunity to know the conditions imposed by the order subject to which recognition was granted. The document has no evidentiary value as it is a mutilated one. Unless the petitioner had produced the entire document, he cannot place any reliance on the said document in order to sustain the contention that the institute is a recognised one, within the meaning of the section. It is also not known from the said document whether the recognition continues to be in force. .4. If Ex.B-1 is eschewed the only remaining evidence is that of the deposition of R.Ws.l and 2. R.W.I is the second petitioner herein. He has spoken to the fact that the trust is running the institute under the name “Memorial Free Technical Institute”. He has also said that the trust is meeting a portion of the expenditure of the institute which is run for charity. He has not said that recognition continues to be in force nor has he spoken about the conditions subject to which recognition was granted. R.W.2 claims to be the commercial instructor working for about nine years in the institute. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he has seen Ex.B-1 earlier and that the conditions annexed to Ex.B-1 are kept in a separate file. 5. When the evidence adduced by the petitioner is to the effect that the portion of the document containing the conditions is available in a separate file, the petitioner ought to have produced the same. There is no explanation whatever for non-production of that part of the document. In the absence of the production of the entire document showing the recognition granted by the Government in favour of the petitioner, the appellate authority is justified in holding that the petitioner has not proved that it is an educational institution having been recognised by the Government and the concerned authority. .6. In the absence of the production of the entire document showing the recognition granted by the Government in favour of the petitioner, the appellate authority is justified in holding that the petitioner has not proved that it is an educational institution having been recognised by the Government and the concerned authority. .6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Ramachandran v. Kamalchand Baid, 79 L.W. (S.N.) 37. It is held that in order that the provisions of Sec.l0(4)(2) of the Act may apply the requisites to be satisfied are: .“There must be letting, it must be for use as an educational institution, and the building should still be used for that purpose, and, further, the institution should be one that has been recognised by the Government or any authority empowered by the Government in that behalf, and lastly, such recognition must continue at the relevant date.” 7. My attention is also drawn to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Secretary, Local Library Authority v. P.Govinda Reddy. 1977 All India Rent Control Journal 239. It is held in that case the word ‘education’ is of wide amplitude and takes in its fold not only the traditional type of education of arts or sciences, but the term includes education of every kind. In that case the court held that a library where self directed education is imparted to all those who seek such education voluntarily is an “educational institution” within the meaning of Sec. 10(4)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Act which is similar to the Tamil Nadu Act. 8. Neither of the above rulings will apply to this case as I have held on the facts that the petitioner has failed to prove the recognition granted by the Government to this institute. 9. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the requirement of respondents for their own occupation is bona fide. While the Rent Controller has written a cryptic order taking the view that circumstances of the case show that the requirement is not bona fide and failed to consider the evidence on record, the appellate authority has discussed the relevant evidence in an appropriate manner and come to the conclusion that the requirement is bona fide. While the Rent Controller has written a cryptic order taking the view that circumstances of the case show that the requirement is not bona fide and failed to consider the evidence on record, the appellate authority has discussed the relevant evidence in an appropriate manner and come to the conclusion that the requirement is bona fide. In the original petition, the respondents have held that the second petitioner therein (second respondent herein) is doing business in electricals under the name and style of ‘Deevan and Company’ at N.S.B. Road, Tiruchirapalli and the building where the business is being conducted is a rented one. It is alleged that the space in the said building is not sufficient and for the purpose of conducting the business in a big manner the original petitioners require the petition building for storing their electrical goods and using it as their godown. In support of the said allegations, P.W.I who is the second petitioner in the original petition has given evidence. He has stated clearly that there is no other building owned by the original petitioners excepting the petition building. He has spoken to the fact that the building is required for using as godown and that the space in the rented building is not sufficient therefor. The respondents have examined another witness before the appellate authority after the matter was remanded by this Court in C.R.P. No.1585 of 1993 for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In fact, after remand, the respondents have marked two documents and examined one witness whereas the petitioner has not filed any document or examined any witness. The appellate authority has considered the evidence of P.W.2 and also pointed out that it supports fully the case of the respondents herein. The question is one of fact and the evidence on record has been appreciated correctly by the appellate authority. .10. On the other hand, the only contention urged in this regard by the petitioner herein is that the respondents wanted additional rent and when the petitioner refused to pay the same, the respondents have filed this petition for eviction. That allegation made by the petitioner has not been proved in any manner. Excepting his ipse dixit there is no evidence whatever to prove the said allegation of higher rent. R.W.I has not chosen to show anything with regard to the space available for the respondents herein in the rented building. That allegation made by the petitioner has not been proved in any manner. Excepting his ipse dixit there is no evidence whatever to prove the said allegation of higher rent. R.W.I has not chosen to show anything with regard to the space available for the respondents herein in the rented building. Nor has he stated that the petition building is not fit for being used as godown. In fact, there was no pleading on the part of the petitioner herein in the first instance when the second petitioner filed a counter in the civil revision petition. There is not even a whisper regarding the absence of bona fides in the requirement for own occupation. But an additional counter was filed after the matter was remanded to the appellate court by this Court. In that additional counter a vague averment is made that the requirement for own occupation is not bona fide. Even in that counter there is no denial of the factum that the second respondent herein conducted a business or that the space occupied by them in the rented building is not sufficient. 11. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to uphold the finding of the appellate authority that the requirement for own occupation by the respondents herein is bona fide.. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition has to suffer a dismissal and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel for the respondents agreed for grant of time of three months provided an affidavit of undertaking is filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is granted time till 11. 1996 to vacate the premises on condition that an affidavit of undertaking is filed by the petitioner on or before 29. 1995. If such an undertaking is not filed to vacate the premises by 11. 1996, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of the grant of time to vacate the premises. If such an undertaking is not filed, the respondents are entitled to execute the order immediately.