Judgment :- 1. Panneerselvam, the proprietor of typewriting institute, the tenant under the respondent having lost in both the forums by the order of eviction has filed this civil revision petition. 2. The respondent, landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground of personal use under Sec.10(3) (a)(iii). Both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority concluded that the requirement for personal use was bona fide and the tenant is liable to be evicted. 3. Mr.Uthirasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing both the orders, would contend that the eviction petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable and that admittedly the premises was let out to the petitioner by the respondent for running the educational institution viz., typewriting institute. It is also pointed out on the basis of the documents filed in this case that there is a Government recognition as well for running the said institute in the said premises. 4. In Mothi Sampoornammal Trust v. Mohammed Hanif and others Mothi Sampoornammal Trust v. Mohammed Hanif and others Mothi Sampoornammal Trust v. Mohammed Hanif and others , (1996)1 MLJ. 201 this Court had an occasion to deal with the question as to whether the application for eviction could be entertained against the educational institution which has been approved by the Government. It is also submitted that when the tenant is an educational institution, no order of eviction could be passed as per Sec.10(4)(ii) of the Act. This Court in the decision cited supra would hold as follows: “The provisions of Sec.10(4)(2) of the Act may apply, and the requisites to be satisfied are: there must beletting, it must be for use as an educational institution and the building still be used for the 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.” 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the materials on record would make it clear that these requisites have been satisfied. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that this point was not raised and argued either before the rent controller or before the Appellate Authority, though there was a specific ground as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the appeal grounds filed before the Appellate Authority. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that this point was not raised and argued either before the rent controller or before the Appellate Authority, though there was a specific ground as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the appeal grounds filed before the Appellate Authority. It is seen that there is no discussion about this point in both the impugned orders. Therefore, it is appropriate to remit back the matter to the Appellate Authority to give opportunity to the petitioner to argue this point on the strength of the decision referred to above. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and remitted back for the limited purpose for deciding the point indicated above. The Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the matter by giving opportunity to counsel for both parties within two months from the date of communication of this order. 7. With the above observation, this revision petition is disposed of.