Judgment : 1. Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.267 of 1992 on the file of Rent Controller, Coimbatore, is the revision petitioner. 2. Parties herein will be referred to as landlord and tenant for the sake of convenience. 3. Tenant in this case is a Nationalised Bank. Schedule premises was taken by the Institution for the purpose of residence of its Manager 4. Theentire building consists of ground floor and three other floors. The ground floor is occupied by the tenant, where it is having its Branch Office. The schedule premises is also let out to the tenant under separate rental arrangement for being used as residential quarters of its Manager. Landlord alleged that marriage of his grown up son was fixed in 1990 and this fact was informed to the tenant. An additional space was required by the landlord and the tenant was asked to vacate from the scheduled premises. There is no favourable response and the landlord issued a registered notice on 30.7.1991, asking the tenant to vacate the premises. In that notice, the tenant was informed that the marriage is also fixed and they are in urgent need of additional space. Another notice was issued on 5. 1992, asking the tenant to vacate the premises, for which also, there is no reply. The tenant, without referring to the earlier correspondence, wanted the lease to continue, for which the landlord sent a reply with a copy to Head Office and Regional Office, claiming possession of the schedule premises. 5. In the counter statement filed by the tenant, the bona fides of the claim was disputed. According to them, the landlord was not satisfied with the rent paid by the Bank and when he claimed exorbitant rent which was refused to be paid by tenant, this eviction petition is filed. They also alleged that the landlord is in possession of other buildings within the city of Coimbatore and therefore, the claim is without any bona fides. 6. On the basis of above pleadings, parties went on trial. Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked on the side of the landlord and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked on the side of the tenant. Oral evidence consists of P.W.-1, husband of the landlady and R.W.-1, the Branch Manager. 6. On the basis of above pleadings, parties went on trial. Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked on the side of the landlord and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked on the side of the tenant. Oral evidence consists of P.W.-1, husband of the landlady and R.W.-1, the Branch Manager. After evaluating the evidence, the Rent Controller held that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and the tenant was directed to surrender vacant possession within 2 months. 7. Tenant preferred R.C.A.No.81 of 1996 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The Appellate Authority after reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the eviction order of the Rent Controller. Appellate Authority also gave 2 months time to surrender vacant possession. 8. Theconcurrent findings of the Authorities below are challenged in this revision. 9. Since caveat was entered by the respondent, I heard the revision itself at the stage of admission. 10. Both the courts below have held that schedule premises is required for the bona fide own use for landlords son and the requirement of additional accommodation is genuine. It was also held by the courts below that landlords son is not in possession of any other residential building and he is depending only on landlady to provide for accommodation. The courts below have also found that landladys son has got recently married and the schedule premises is suitable for their residence. Even before marriage, the demand was made and after marriage also, this fact was informed, there is no reply to any of these notice. 11. Courts below have found that the claim of the landlady is bona fide and landlords son requires the schedule premises for their residence. Since the landlady is in occupation of a portion of the entire structure, eviction petition was filed for own occupation as additional accommodation. An argument was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have got other buildings within the city of Coimbatore and they are disqualified from getting possession. The finding of the courts below is that the landladys son is not in possession of any building. When evidence of P.W.-1 is accepted and when he has satisfied all the statutory conditions, a presumption as to the genuineness of claim arises. It is for the tenant to rebut that presumption by adducing better evidence. The finding of the courts below is that the landladys son is not in possession of any building. When evidence of P.W.-1 is accepted and when he has satisfied all the statutory conditions, a presumption as to the genuineness of claim arises. It is for the tenant to rebut that presumption by adducing better evidence. Both the courts below have held that there is nothing to doubt about genuineness of claim. Being a finding of fact, I will not be justified in interferring with those findings, unless the same is perverse. Counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice the oral evidence submitted by both the parties. He also read before me the entire evidence. After perusing the oral evidence also, I do not find any ground to hold that the conclusion reached by the Authorities below is in any way unreasonable or illegal. I hold that the schedule building is required as an additional accommodation for the landlady. 12. An argument was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the eviction petition is order for additional accommodation, relative hardship of the parties also, will have to be considered. It was submitted that the residence of the Manager is necessary and will be more convenient for the customers, if he resides close to the Branch itself. His further argument is that the Rent Controller did not enter a finding as to relative hardship and the Appellate Authority was not justified in entering a finding for the first time. 13. None of these submissions could be accepted. 114. It is true that the Rent Controller has not entered a finding as to relative hardship. When it found that the schedule premises is required for additional accommodation for landladys son, it is a statutory duty of the Rent Controller to enter a finding. But, when the matter was taken in appeal, the Appellate Authority has considered this question and held against the tenant. Under Rent Control Act, the Appellate Authority has got all the powers of the Rent Controller and it can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and enter independent findings and it can also hold further enquiry, if so required. The question of relative hardship was also put forward before the Appellate Authority, which held that the tenant is not put to any great difficulty at all. The question of relative hardship was also put forward before the Appellate Authority, which held that the tenant is not put to any great difficulty at all. Admittedly, the schedule building is not being used as residential accommodation of the Manager at present since the previous Manager was transferred and the new Manager did not occupy the schedule premises and it is not the case of the tenant that because of the separate residence of the Branch Manager, the work of the Branch is in any way affected. For the purpose of considering relative hardship, the availability of alternate accommodation is an important factor to be considered. If the tenant has already obtained possession of alternate accommodation for the same purpose, there cannot be any question of relative hardship at all. Again, on a reading of Sec.10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act, relative hardship is considered as between two individuals. If the tenant is a national institution, the provision of relative hardship is not to be applied in the same way as in the case of individual. Here, the tenant is a Government undertaking and it is already in possession of an alternate accommodation. The Court also can take judicial notice of the fact that Nationalised Banks are providing residential quarters far way from the place, where the Branches are situated and in none of the cases, the Bank has a case that the public is put to a great difficulty. If a building is available close to the Branch, it is only a matter of convenience for the Manager and the question of hardship will not arise in such cases. 115. An argument was taken by the learned counsel that there is no pleading regarding relative hardship by the landlord in the eviction petition. Counsel also relied on the decision in B.C.S. Enterprises v. Ashok Kumar Lunia B.C.S. Enterprises v. Ashok Kumar Lunia B.C.S. Enterprises v. Ashok Kumar Lunia (1995)2 C.T.C. 281 for the said purpose. It is true that in the above decision, a learned Judge of this Court, relying on an earlier decision of this Court in N.Krishnaswamy v. Arumugham N.Krishnaswamy v. Arumugham N.Krishnaswamy v. Arumugham (1993)I MLJ. 122 have held so. It is true that in the above decision, a learned Judge of this Court, relying on an earlier decision of this Court in N.Krishnaswamy v. Arumugham N.Krishnaswamy v. Arumugham N.Krishnaswamy v. Arumugham (1993)I MLJ. 122 have held so. In that case, it was held that even, if the landlord proves that he may be put to hardship, on a comparative assessment, the petition is liable to be dismissed unless there is specific plea to that effect in the petition. I do not think the above decision holds good in view of the decision in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani (1999)1 S.C.C. 141 . Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a similar question came up for consideration under Delhi Rent Control Act. Landlord can seek eviction, only if he does not have any other suitable residential accommodation. In that case, the landlord did not plead whether he has got alternate residential accommodation or not at the time of initiating the proceeding. Tenant filed his counter, stating that on the date of eviction petition was filed, the landlord was in physical possession of another accommodation. Accepting the contention of the tenant, eviction petition was dismissed as mala fide. The matter was taken before the High Court in revision. The High Court set aside the order and held that the claim of the landlord is bona fide. Tenant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and one of the questions that was mooted was about the lack of pleadings. In paras.8 to 10 of the judgment, their Lordships held thus: “8. The High Court set aside the order and held that the claim of the landlord is bona fide. Tenant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and one of the questions that was mooted was about the lack of pleadings. In paras.8 to 10 of the judgment, their Lordships held thus: “8. Shri Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Advocate in his reply submitted that the power of revision includes correction of errors of law and on occasions would include intervention of findings of facts where the right of a party is involved which is conferred on a party; that when the bona fide requirement of the landlord was established, the fact that there was suppression of a certain fact becomes extraneous; that the trial court having taken into consideration the accommodation available in the Subzi Mandi premises came to the conclusion that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide, but even so it came to the conclusion that the suppression would not affect the case at all; that pleas are raised in order to put the other party to notice and when the other party is already in the knowledge of such information, the relevance of the lack of pleadings is of no effect; that ascertainment of facts for the purpose of finding whether requirement is bona fide or not is a matter of detail and that exercise has been done in this case. Therefore, he submitted relying on the decisions in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders & Agencies (1996)5 S.C.C. 344 and Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander (1998)3 S.C.C. 131 that the view taken by the High Court must be upheld. 9. Sec.14(1)(e) of the Act reads as follows: “Sec.14(1)(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation; 10. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the court must also find out whether landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, then necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances, further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend (SIC defeat) the claim of the landlord. [Italics supplied] 16. On the basis of above law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not think the argument of the learned counsel could be accepted. An eviction can be ordered under Sec.10(3) (c), only if relative hardship is considered and a finding is to be entered one way or another. It is a statutory duty on the part of the Rent Controller to enter such a finding even if there is no pleadings. Whether landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction, depends on a consideration of relative hardship. The question before the Rent Controller would not necessarily depend on the pleadings when it is a statutory obligation on the part of the Rent Controller to consider that question. The tenant can prove or take a good defence that if he is evicted, he will be put to great hardship. But, the lack of pleadings or vague pleading by itself will not be a ground to hold that the eviction petition is not maintainable. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, further held thus: “11. The tenant can prove or take a good defence that if he is evicted, he will be put to great hardship. But, the lack of pleadings or vague pleading by itself will not be a ground to hold that the eviction petition is not maintainable. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, further held thus: “11. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the court to decide the matter. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the court neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.” [Italics supplied] If both parties have understood the case and have adduced, evidence, the question of lack of pleadings cannot be raised for first time in revision. From the discussion by the Appellate Authority, I do not find that such a contention was put forward before that court. Appellate Authority considered the question of relative hardship and held against the tenant. The tenant has no case that it was prejudiced by the lack of pleadings. The law is well settled that in regard to Rent Control matters, the pleadings are not much insisted upon as in the case of civil suits. Rent Control proceedings are of summary nature. If the parties are aware as to the real matter in controversy and oppurtunity was given to them to lead their evidence, the Court will not be justified to dismiss the application merely on the ground of lack of pleadings or vagueness in pleading. 17. In the result, the revision is without merit and consequently, the same is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.2406 of 2000 is also dismissed. 18. After pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner wants time to vacate the premises. Counsel for the respondent also heard. 19. 17. In the result, the revision is without merit and consequently, the same is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.2406 of 2000 is also dismissed. 18. After pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner wants time to vacate the premises. Counsel for the respondent also heard. 19. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, I direct the petitioner to vacate the premises on or before 30.6.2000 on the petitioner filing an undertaking before the court closes for summer vacation and also pays to the landlord the entire arrears of rent as on this date. If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the landlord can enter into the premises and no further time is granted.