Judgment : Landlord in R.C.O.P.No.734 of 1992 on the file of XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras is the revision petitioner. 2. Landlord filed eviction petition alleging that he requires scheduled premises for his own occupation. Petition was filed under Secs.10(3)(a)(i) and10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Rent Controller held that landlord is not entitled to file application under both sections and held that the petition is not maintainable. It further held that the claim for additional accommodation is also not bona fide and dismissed the petition. 3. The matter was taken by landlord in R.C.A.No.67 of 1996 on the file of Appellate Authority/VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras. Appellate Authority held that eviction petition is maintainable under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act i.e., for bona fide requirement as additional accommodation. Appellate authority further held that landlord and his wife are old and they are not keeping good health. But at the same time, it found that claim is not bona fide and confirmed the dismissal of petition. 4. It is against the concurrent finding of authorities below, this revision petition is filed under Sec.25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 5. According to tenant, claim for eviction is not bona fide. Landlord is interested only in enhancement of rent. Originally the rate of rent was only Rs.5,500 and subsequently, the same was enhanced to Rs.6,000. There was further increase to Rs.9,000 and then to Rs.12,000. When two years period was over, landlord demanded further enhancement in rent to Rs.12,000 per month. Tenant could not accept the demand and wanted time for negotiation. Finally tenant also agreed for enhancement in rent to Rs.12,000 provided the term of tenancy is at least 5 years. Landlord did not commit themselves and immediately moved this Court with the rent control petition. According to tenant, the ill-health alleged is only a ground for eviction. It is further submitted that landlord is residing in second floor and they are occupying non-residential premises. If they feel difficulty in climbing upstairs, they could have occupied the first floor of the building which remained vacant for some time and the same was let out to another tenant after eviction proceedings were initiated. The said objection was accepted by both authorities below which held that the claim of petitioner is not bona fide. 6. If they feel difficulty in climbing upstairs, they could have occupied the first floor of the building which remained vacant for some time and the same was let out to another tenant after eviction proceedings were initiated. The said objection was accepted by both authorities below which held that the claim of petitioner is not bona fide. 6. Before considering the merits of the case I have to consider the scope of revisional powers under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 7. In the very recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in T.Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari T.Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari T.Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari (1999) 7 S.C.C. 275 in para.5 of the judgment, their Lordships held thus: .“So far as the second submission is concerned, the language employed in Sec.25 of the Act, which confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court, is very wide. Under Sec.25 of the Act, the High Court can call for and examine the record of the appellate authority in order to satisfy itself as to regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or orders passed therein. The words “to satisfy itself” employed in Sec.25 of the Act no doubt is a power of superintendence, and the High Court is not required to interfere with the finding of fact merely because the High Court is not in agreement with the findings of the courts below. It is also true that the power exercisable by the High Court under Sec.25 of the Act is not an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the courts below. But where a finding arrived at by the courts below is based on no evidence, the High Court would be justified in interfering with such a finding recorded by the courts below…” 8. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr.Mahesh Chand Gupta Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr.Mahesh Chand Gupta Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr.Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999)6 S.C.C. 222 case coming under Delhi Rent Control Act, in para.11, their Lordships held thus: “…The phraseology of the provision as reproduced hereinbefore provides an interesting reading placed in juxtaposition with the phraseology employed by the legislature in drafting Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the latter provision the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is circumscribed by the Subordinate Court having committed one of the three errors, namely, (i) having exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (ii) having failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (iii) having exercised its jurisdiction with illegality or material irregularity. Under the proviso to Sub-sec.(8) of Sec.25-B, the expression governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court is “for the purpose of satisfying if an order made by the Controller is according to law”. The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Sec.25-B(8) is not so limited as is under Sec.115, C.P.C. nor so wide as that of an appellate court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or reappreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of “whether it is according to law.” For that limited purpose it may enter into reappraisal of evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached on the material available. Ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding on a wrong premise of law or deriving such conclusion from the established facts as betray of lack of reason and/or objectivity would render the finding of the Controller “not according to lawr” calling for an interference under the proviso to Sub-sec.(8) of Sec.25-B of the Act. A judgment leading to a miscarriage of justice in not a judgment according to law. (See: Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998)8 S.C.C. 119 and Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani (1999)1 S.C.C. 141 . .9. A judgment leading to a miscarriage of justice in not a judgment according to law. (See: Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998)8 S.C.C. 119 and Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani (1999)1 S.C.C. 141 . .9. InUbaiba v. Damodaran (1999)5 S.C.C. 645 , a case under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in para.3 their Lordships have held thus: .“…Having examined the rival submission and having gone through the decision of this Court referred to earlier we are of the considered opinion that though the revisional power under the Rent Act may be wider than Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it cannot be equated even with the second appellate power conferred on the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Notwithstanding the use of the expression” propriety “ in Sec.20, the revisional court therefore will not be entitled to reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusion of the appellate authority…” 10. From the above decisions it is clear that this Court can consider the evidence to see whether the authorities below have taken into consideration all relevant materials and approached the question in the right perspective. Merely because conclusion is wrong this Court is not entitled to interfere while exercising supervisory jurisdiction. If any evidence which are irrelevant or inadmissible evidence is taken into consideration or if law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court or by this Court was not taken into consideration by the authorities below, will be a ground for interference in revision. Law is also well settled that on appreciation of evidence, finding of the courts below cannot be substituted merely because another view is also possible. Within this limited jurisdiction, the court consider whether the decision of authorities below require interference under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 11. Regarding the maintainablilty of the eviction petition, no argument was putforward by learned counsel for respondent challenging the decision of appellate authority. Appellate authority has held that eviction petition is maintainable for the bona fide requirement as additional accommodation. .12. Landlord is occupying second floor of the building. 11. Regarding the maintainablilty of the eviction petition, no argument was putforward by learned counsel for respondent challenging the decision of appellate authority. Appellate authority has held that eviction petition is maintainable for the bona fide requirement as additional accommodation. .12. Landlord is occupying second floor of the building. It is admitted by both sides that landlord and his wife alone are residing in the second floor and all their children are in United Kingdom. It is also in evidence that landlord went to London few months before filing eviction petition, and on return continued to occupy the second floor. It is their case while they were in London, they had some difficulties in climbing up staircase and they were under treatment in United Kingdom. Exs.P-1 and P-2 support the case of landlord that they are not keeping good health while in U.K. After their return to India, they continued the treatment. Exs.P-3 and P-4 are certificates issued by the Doctor who is treating them. The other exhibits are documents came into existence after eviction petition is filed. All these show that landlord and his wife are continuing treatment. Even though Rent Controller held that illness has not been proved and certificate has been produced only to create evidence. That finding was not accepted by the appellate authority. Rent Controller discarded Exs.P-1 and P-2 on the ground that the same are not proved by anyone. Regarding Exs.P-3 and P-4 also Doctor who issued certificate has not been examined. But the Doctor who is attending them daily was examined and he has interpreted Exs.P-3 and P-4 and circumstances under which that was issued. Evidence of P.W.2 was believed by appellate authority in coming to the conclusion that landlord and his wife are not keeping good health and it is difficult for them to climb staircase. It is also found by appellate authority that they are aged and illness pleaded by them is true. The only ground on which appellate authority confirmed the view of Rent Controller is that the claim is not bona fide. That is finding of fact. Various circumstances have been taken by authorities below to hold that the claim is not bona fide. 13. Evena few days before filing of eviction petition, landlord never demanded vacant possession on the ground of ill-health. They only wanted enhancement of rent is clear from the correspondence in the case. That is finding of fact. Various circumstances have been taken by authorities below to hold that the claim is not bona fide. 13. Evena few days before filing of eviction petition, landlord never demanded vacant possession on the ground of ill-health. They only wanted enhancement of rent is clear from the correspondence in the case. It is true that tenant also agreed for enhanced rent of Rs.12,000 provided terms of lease is extended by five years. Landlord was not agreeable for the same and they filed eviction petition. Learned counsel for respondent also submitted before this Court that he has advised his client to pay of Rs.12,000 and they are continuing to pay the same. 14. Scheduled building is used as godown and for storing medicines and other pharmaceuticals products by respondent. First floor of the building also having same plinth area, became vacant. It is lying vacant for few months and it is admitted by landlord that the same is given on rent subsequent to filing of petition. Why they could not occupy that building when it remained vacant is not explained by landlord. Counsel submitted that entire first floor is used only for non-residential purposes and new tenant is also using the same only for that purpose. Scheduled building is also used for nonresidential purpose and if this explanation is accepted nothing prevents landlord from occupying first floor. 15. When both the courts on appreciation of evidence have held that the claim is not bona fide and circumstances also shows that such finding is possible, I do not think that I am justified in interfering in this revision. Finding entered by authorities below is based on evidence and those facts are not disputed. Landlord is only explaining the reasons of those admitted facts. Courts below have disbelieved the evidence of landlord and held that the claim is not bona fide. .16. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of lower court and hold that the decision of authorities below are in accordance with law. 17. Inthe result, the revision petition is without merit and consequently the same is dismissed. No costs.