Judgment : 1. Both these revision petitions are filed by the tenant against the order of eviction passed against him. The subject matter of eviction petitions are same building but two applications were filed by the landlady. 2. R.C.O.P.No.2848 of 1994 was filed under Sec.10(3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, i.e., Landlady bona fide requires the scheduled premises for her own occupation. The other eviction petition R.C.O.P.No.2869 of 1994 was filed by the same landlady under Secs.10(2) (ii) (b) and 10(2) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, i.e., tenant has committed acts of waste in the property and that the building is used for the purposes other than for which it is let out. 3. Rent Controller held that the claim of landlady is bona fide and the needs the building for her own occupation. Though appeal in R.C.A.No.815 of 1997 was preferred, the same did not meet with success and the same was also dismissed. It is against the concurrent finding of authorities below, C.R.P.No.1132 of 2000 is filed. .4. In R.C.O.P.No.2869 of 1994 Rent Controller held that though tenant has taken the building for his residence, it is not being used as such and in fact major portion of the building is now being used as godown for storing cement and hospital materials. Tenant is running a clinic just opposite to the scheduled building and is also putting up a new construction, a five storeyed building and it is found that water from the scheduled building is being used for the purpose of constructing the new building. Even though Rent Controller held that no damage is proved, to scheduled building, tenant is using the building for the purpose other than for which it is let out. Against the said order, tenant preferred R.C.A.No.817 of 1997 on the file of Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed. It is against that judgment C.R.P.No.1133 of 2000 is filed. 5. Since caveat was entered by respondent, I heard the revision petitions at the admission stage itself. 6. I will first consider C.R.P.No.1132 of 2000, which arises from R.C.O.P.No.2848 of 1994. 7. In the eviction petition landlady said that she is now residing in her brothers house and she needs the building for her own occupation. 5. Since caveat was entered by respondent, I heard the revision petitions at the admission stage itself. 6. I will first consider C.R.P.No.1132 of 2000, which arises from R.C.O.P.No.2848 of 1994. 7. In the eviction petition landlady said that she is now residing in her brothers house and she needs the building for her own occupation. According to her, she has no other building of her own and she is a widow. She does not want to reside with her brother. 8. As against the said allegations, tenant contended that the claim is not bona fide as landlady is making illegal methods to evict him and also he had to file a suit as O.S.7338 of 1994 to restrain landlady from interfering with his possession and to forcibly dispossess him from the scheduled property. According to tenant, he has also obtained injunction in I.A.16276 of 1994 against landlady for illegal dispossession. Claim of landlady is not bona fide and he prayed for dismissal of the application. 9. Rent Controller relied on the evidence of P.W.1, landlady. She pleaded that she does not want to continue with his brother not because of strained relationship but because she wants to reside in her own building during her last days. She said that she is a widow and has no other building of her own. She further said that tenant himself admitted that her claim is bona fide and admitted that he will vacate the building in 1994 itself. She further stated that thereafter tenant was even prepared to vacate the premises and telephone connections was also disconnected and shifted to the building belonging to him just opposite to the scheduled premises. Ex.P-2 letter is written by tenant agreeing to vacate the premises. Tenant admitted that he has executed Ex.P-2 letter but according to him it is not valid and enforceable. It is true that even though tenant admits that he will vacate, landlord on the basis of consent alone is not entitled to get eviction when eviction ground is not found bona fide. But letter Ex.P-2 cannot be said as irrelevant while considering bona fides of landlord is the claim is genuine. The same also could be considered for the purpose of finding out bona fides. .10. Authorities below have held that landladys claim is genuine and Court should not insist that she must reside only with her brother. But letter Ex.P-2 cannot be said as irrelevant while considering bona fides of landlord is the claim is genuine. The same also could be considered for the purpose of finding out bona fides. .10. Authorities below have held that landladys claim is genuine and Court should not insist that she must reside only with her brother. When she has no other building of her own and when she says that she wants to occupy her own building, authorities below were reasonable in holding that the claim is genuine. In one of the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde (1999)4 S.C.C. 1 in para 8 their Lordships held thus, .“When a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation there is no doubt he has to prove it. But there is no warrant for presuming that his need is not bona fide. The statute enjoins that the court should be satisfied of his requirement. So the Court would look into the broad aspects and if the court feels any doubt about the bona fides of the requirement it is for the landlord to clear such doubts. Even in a case where the tenant does not contest or dispute the claim of the landlord the court has to look into the claim independently albeit the landlords burden gets lessened by such non-dispute. In appropriate cases it is open to the court to presume that the landlords requirement is bona fide and put the contesting tenant to the burden to show now the requirement is not bona fide [Italics supplied] 11. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that landlady is a widow and she is peacefully living in her brothers house and when she has no case that relationship with her brother is not cordial, she can continue in the building itself. I do not think that this contention of learned senior counsel could be accepted. If the argument of learned senior counsel could be accepted, it would mean that if only there is rift in the family landlady can make use of the building of her own and if there is no rift or if the members of the family have cordial relationship, landlady must continue in the building of her relations. If the argument of learned senior counsel could be accepted, it would mean that if only there is rift in the family landlady can make use of the building of her own and if there is no rift or if the members of the family have cordial relationship, landlady must continue in the building of her relations. For the purpose of getting eviction, Court cannot insist that rift is to be created and landlady must come to court with begging bowl for getting her own building. 12. In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company ltd. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company ltd. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company ltd. (1998)8 S.C.C. 119 very simple question came for consideration. The case arose under Delhi Rent Control Act. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Judgment their Lordships held thus, “14. … When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. 15. Facts such as the cordial relationship between a landlord and his daughter-in-law or that he is comfortably residing in the present building are not relevant in judging the bona fides of the claim of the landlord. Otherwise it would appear that the landlord can think of residing in his or her own residential building only when cracks develop in the relationship between him and his kith and kin.” 13. Otherwise it would appear that the landlord can think of residing in his or her own residential building only when cracks develop in the relationship between him and his kith and kin.” 13. Kerala High Court had occasion to consider similar question in the decision reported in Ramakrishnan v. Gopala Moothan (1971) K.L.T. 427 wherein learned Judge held thus, “When the members constituting a joint family feel that accommodation is insufficient and, for maintaining healthy relationship between members inter se, it is better that other accommodation is found, the matter has to be viewed from a practical and humane stand point. It is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord that the latter should somehow or other adjust himself in his family house and put up with the difficulties and inconveniences.” [Italics supplied] 14. Similar is the view taken by another Judge of Kerala High Court in the decision reported in Secretary, Thevara Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd. v. Jose 1984 K.L.T. 290 In para 10 of the Judgment learned Judge held thus, “Long time back it has been recognised that the brides place is with the husband. Sankaran Nair, J. speaking on behalf of himself and Wallis, J. said so (see Surampalli Bangaramma v. Surampalli Brambaza I.L.R. 31 Mad. 338 “Her home is in her husbands house”. The fact that the landlords mother owns a house is not ground to deny the landlord the claim for eviction of his own building. A feeling that one is under his own roof, and as of right, is a comforting one duly recognised and protected by law and legal institutions. Even if one need not be apprehensive that a close relation like a father or mother, brother or sister may not drive him out of the house owned by any of them, the need felt by the individual to have a separate establishment is a perfectly justified one. …” And, thereafter learned Judge relied on the, 1971 K.L.T. 427. The argument of learned senior counsel is therefore rejected. 15. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in T.Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari T.Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari T.Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari (1999)7 S.C.C. 275 which is a case coming under our Act. In that case their Lordships held that desire or need must also be kept in mind and by the mere desire landlord is not entitled to get eviction. 15. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in T.Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari T.Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari T.Sivasubramaniam v. Kasinath Pujari (1999)7 S.C.C. 275 which is a case coming under our Act. In that case their Lordships held that desire or need must also be kept in mind and by the mere desire landlord is not entitled to get eviction. In para 4 of the Judgment their Lordships held that” it is not pleaded by landlord that he for certain compelling reasons desired to live separately from his father and for that reason he required the premises. We also do not find any evidence on record to show that the landlord required the premises and his need was bona fide In that case both pleading and evidence was lacking and consequently their Lordships held that the claim of bona fide is not made out. 16. In this case landlady has entered the box and has spoken about her need. She says that she wants to live separately and to spend her last days in her own house. Both the authorities on appreciation of evidence held that it is not desire but genuine claim and utmost good faith on the part of landlady in claiming eviction. Even if we consider it is sentiment based requirement, I do not think that tenant is entitled to contend that the claim is not bona fide especially in view of the decision reported in Ram Dulari Bai v. Madanlal Bajaj (1998)8 S.C.C. 504 . There also a claim was made by landlady that she require the building for her own occupation. Landlady in that case pleaded that it was the last desire of her husband that she live in the house and that in order to fulfil that desire she was emotionally bound and wanted to fulfil that wish. Rent Controller as well as Revisional authority held against landlady on the ground that even the letting was subsequent to the death of her husband and she never honoured the sentiments of her husband and the claim is therefore not bona fide The question came before the Honourable Supreme Court and in para 3 of the Judgment it is held thus, “… The authenticity of the desire expressed by the husband of the first appellant has not been disputed. The landlady has been non-suited by way of punishment as to why in the first instance did she defy the wish of her husband and let out the house. Having done so, she cannot claim it back. This, in our view, is an extremely unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter like the present one. If the landlady had in some situation transgressed that desire, that did not mean that she was ever precluded from projecting that desire at a later stage, and on rethinking, make amends. Denying her the right to live in that house would bring about a great deal of mental stress and sense of guilt on her, having disobeyed her husband and hence her need to have the house for personal requirement was established. Presently, she is stated to be 75 years of age. Keeping this factor also in view, we upset the impugned orders of the courts below and order eviction of the respondent.” 17. In the present case, after landlady became widow, she had to live with her brother. Scheduled premises was constructed for her residence but circumstances made her or compelled her to live with her brother for some time. That does not prevent her from seeking eviction when she says that she would be little more happy if she is allowed to live in her own house though she was compelled to live with her brother. It is in the above circumstances Ex.P-2 letter of tenant will becomes relevant. Tenant also agrees that he will vacate and wrote Ex.P-2 letter. That means he is also satisfied about the genuineness of the claim. As R.W.-1, agent of tenant has said that landlady has been demanding the building for her own occupation at least for the last three years and he also admitted that she is a widow and is now living with her brother. When landlady asserts that she requires the building for her own occupation, presumption arises in her favour. The evidence of R.W.1 does not rebut that presumption. Authorities below were justified in holding that the claim of landlady is genuine. .18. When landlady asserts that she requires the building for her own occupation, presumption arises in her favour. The evidence of R.W.1 does not rebut that presumption. Authorities below were justified in holding that the claim of landlady is genuine. .18. In, (1999)7 S.C.C. 275 , their Lordships also considered the scope of Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act wherein in para 5 of the Judgment it is 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. …” [Italics supplied] .19. The decision of Rent Controller as confirmed by the Appellate Authority cannot be said as based on no evidence. On appreciation of evidence, Rent Controller held that the claim is genuine and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The finding cannot be held as unreasonable or perverse and there is also no argument by learned counsel that such a finding could not have been entered on the basis of available materials. It is also not his case that authorities below have not taken into consideration the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court or this Court nor he has a case that authorities below have taken irrelevant materials in giving importance to it out of proportion and finding entered against him. 20. It is also not his case that authorities below have not taken into consideration the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court or this Court nor he has a case that authorities below have taken irrelevant materials in giving importance to it out of proportion and finding entered against him. 20. In this connection it may also be worth to note that tenant has taken the building for residential purposes. The finding is that he is not residing in that building. Tenant has got a palatial building just opposite to scheduled building where he is running a Nursing Home and close to it he has also got residential quarters where admittedly his parents are residing. Scheduled building is used only to accommodate some nurses and major portion is used as godown for storing materials for construction. When tenant is also not using it as residential house an inference can be drawn that on the basis of Ex.P-2 he wanted to hand over the building to landlady. Taking into consideration these facts C.R.P.No.1132 of 2000 is dismissed. 21. InC.R.P.No.1133 of 2000, landlady claims eviction on the ground that the building is used for the purpose other than for which it was let out, and tenant committed active waste in the property. Of course, Rent Controller held that landlady has not proved the ground of waste so as to impair the value and utility of the building. The question arises is whether landlady is entitled to get eviction on the ground of change of user. 22. A commission was taken under the orders of Rent Controller and Commissioner submitted that even though there is evidence to show that the building is being used for residential purposes, he also finds that the entire car shed is used only for the purpose of storing waste materials and a large portion of the building pieces of furnitures required for the clinic run by tenant are stored. He also found that portion of rooms are rearranged in such a way to accommodate the nurses. Probably they are using kitchen and store room for their residence. It has also come out in evidence spoken by P.W.2 that originally there was telephone connection to the scheduled building and all those telephone connections were disconnected and shifted to other premises belonging to tenant. As on date, there is no telephone connection to the scheduled premises. Probably they are using kitchen and store room for their residence. It has also come out in evidence spoken by P.W.2 that originally there was telephone connection to the scheduled building and all those telephone connections were disconnected and shifted to other premises belonging to tenant. As on date, there is no telephone connection to the scheduled premises. Electric meter which stands in the name of landlady, consumption is to the minimum. But at the same time, tenant has taken another service connection in his name and has also installed a motor to the well belonging to landlady. Entire water from the well is utilised for the construction purpose and consumption of electricity is also much higher in the service connection which stands in the name of tenant. All these show that tenant is not making use of the building for his residence though the building was taken for that purpose. Major portion is used as godown and part of it is to accommodation some of his nurse. 23. Whentenant took the building for residential purpose he was allowed to make use of the well water for his residential purposes. Now that he is making use of the well water for the purpose of construction, landlady is also seriously affected by it. That also shows that tenant uses the building for other purpose. In fact, by extracting water for other purposes, the utility of the building is also seriously affected. But I cannot grant eviction on that ground since Rent Controller has not granted eviction on that ground, which was not challenged in appeal. When tenant makes use of well water which is one of the amenities to the building, for other purpose, it is clear that itself shows that tenant is not using the building for residential purposes. 24. In this connection, I am reminded of the decision reported in Motiram Dayaram v. Chimanlal Atmaram (1998)8 S.C.C. 425 a case coming under Bombay Rent Control Act. In that case relying on Sec.108 of Transfer of Property Act their Lordships in paragraphs 2 and 3 held thus, “2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 24. In this connection, I am reminded of the decision reported in Motiram Dayaram v. Chimanlal Atmaram (1998)8 S.C.C. 425 a case coming under Bombay Rent Control Act. In that case relying on Sec.108 of Transfer of Property Act their Lordships in paragraphs 2 and 3 held thus, “2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sec.13(1) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and clause (o) of Sec.108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which are relevant, are as under: “13.(1) (a) that the tenant has committed any act contrary to the provision of clause (o) of Sec.108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.” “108.(o) the lessee may use the property and its products (if any) as a person of ordinary prudence would use them if they were his own; but he must not use, or permit another to use, the property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, or fell or sell timber, pull down or damages buildings belonging to the lessor, or work mines or quarries not open when the lease was granted, or commit any other act which is destructive or permanently injurious thereto;” 3. It is the admitted case that the ground floor of the premises in dispute is not being used for the purpose for which it was let out to the tenant. It is not disputed that the premises was taken on rent by the tenant for residential purposes, but later on he converted it for commercial purpose. The tenant has on the face of it violated the provisions of Sec.108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, which specifically says “but he must not use, or permit another use, the property for a purpose other than that for which it was leased.” The landlord is, therefore, entitled to recover the possession from the tenant on the plain language of Sec.108(o) read with Sec.13(1) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. Even otherwise we are not impressed by the argument that no damage was caused to the premises. Converting a residential premises into a sort of mini-textile factory is surely going to affect the residential utility of the premises. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. Converting a residential premises into a sort of mini-textile factory is surely going to affect the residential utility of the premises. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. We set aside the High Court judgment and restore that of the trial court as upheld by the appellate court and direct the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute.” 25. By change of user even if utility of the building is not affected that by itself is a ground for eviction under our Act. By dumping entire waste materials in the car shed and major portion of the building is used for dumping hospital materials the residential building is converted as godown. Tenant is also not using the same for which he took the building on rent and he is comfortably staying in the building situated in the opposite side. Taking into consideration these facts it has to be held that landlady is entitled to get eviction on the ground of change of user also. 26. At the fag end of the argument, learned senior counsel submitted that some time may be granted to vacate the building. Initially I was also inclined to give some time for tenant to vacate the premises. But when the authorities below have held that tenant is not using the building for the purpose for which it was let out and he got other buildings in the opposite direction and he is residing comfortably in the building, I feel seeking time to surrender possession of the building is intended only to harass the landlady. Hence the request to grant time to vacate the premises is rejected. 27. Inthe result, both the revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate fee is quantified as Rs.3,000 for each revision petitions. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.5985 and 5986 of 2000 are also dismissed.