Judgment :- Florence Consultancy (P) Limited, the petitioner herein is the tenant under Smt.Gowri Motha, the respondent herein. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.72 of 1997 on the grounds of wilful default, owner's occupation and sub-letting. The Rent Controller rejected the claim of the landlady for sub-letting and however, allowed the eviction petition on the grounds of wilful default and owner's occupation. Challenging the same, the tenant filed the appeal in R.C.A.No.22 of 1999. The same was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition by the tenant. 2. According to the respondent, the petition premises was let out by her to the tenant under the agreement by which the tenant has to pay a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and in addition, to pay Rs.4,500/- for amenities. The advance ;amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid. From December 1995 to August 1997 for about 21 months, the tenant did not pay the rent. The arrears accrued was Rs.1,36,000/-. The tenant gave a cheque for Rs.32,000/-. The said cheque was dishonoured for want of funds. The Power Agent of the landlady is her brother. So, the landlady requires the building for brother's (owner's) occupation as he has to shift his business from SIPCOT campus, Tuticorin to the petition premises. The premises also has been let-out to third party. On these grounds, the eviction was sought. 3. According to the tenant, the rent is not Rs.6,500/- as claimed, but it is only Rs.2,000/-. The entire arrears of rent till April 1998 was paid. The landlady is not entitled for getting the premises for owner's occupation as the claim was made not for her, but for her brother. Sub-letting is false. The tenant is running the business through its main branch as well as the branches in the petition premises. 4. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, ordered eviction on the grounds of wilful default and owner's occupation. 5. The tenant has filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the additional documents have been filed by both parties. When the appeal is pending, the landlady filed another rent control proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 2000 on the grounds of sub-letting and the act of waste. In that proceedings, it was argued by the tenant that the petition is not maintainable, since the issue regarding sub-letting was already decided and as such, there is res juidicata. When the appeal is pending, the landlady filed another rent control proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 2000 on the grounds of sub-letting and the act of waste. In that proceedings, it was argued by the tenant that the petition is not maintainable, since the issue regarding sub-letting was already decided and as such, there is res juidicata. However, the Rent Controller rejected the said contention and held that the eviction petition was maintainable. Ultimately, the Rent Controller found that the sub-letting and the act of waste are not proved by the landlady and dismissed the same. Against that order, the landlady filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.30 of 2002 and the same was pending. At that stage, the Appellate Authority was requested to consider the materials in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 2000 and pass a considered order in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in 1996 (II) C.T.C. 557 (Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & another). On that basis, the Appellate Authority considered both the appeals and passed orders separately in both the appeals. 6. The present appeal would relate to wilful default and owner's occupation. It is true that the Rent Controller held that the monthly rent was only Rs.2,000/- and not Rs.6,500/-. Even though such a conclusion has been arrived at by the Rent Controller as alleged by the tenant, it came to the conclusion that even that rent was not at all paid and as such, there is wilful default. 7. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the tenant, an application has been filed before the Appellate Authority by the landlady to allow her to file additional documents to prove that the rent was Rs.6,500/-. The same was permitted. The tenant also was permitted to file his additional documents. The request of the landlady for filing additional documents was not objected to by the tenant. Under those circumstances, the relevant documents Exs.P5, P6, P7, P8 and P21 were marked. These documents including the rental agreement would clearly indicate that monthly rent was Rs.2,000/- and another Rs.4,500/- as rent for amenities. 8. The Rent Controller was not able to decide with reference to the quantum of rent in view of the fact that the rental agreement was not produced then. These documents including the rental agreement would clearly indicate that monthly rent was Rs.2,000/- and another Rs.4,500/- as rent for amenities. 8. The Rent Controller was not able to decide with reference to the quantum of rent in view of the fact that the rental agreement was not produced then. Now, the Appellate Authority having perused the rental agreement, which is not seriously disputed by the tenant, has concluded that Rs.6,500/- was the monthly rent. On that basis, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the rental amount at the rate of Rs.6,500/- was not paid by the tenant to the landlady. 9. It is contended that in the absence of the appeal filed by the landlady, the Appellate Authority has concluded that the rent amount is Rs.6,500/-. This contention is not tenable in view of the fact that the said decision was taken by the Appellate Authority on the basis of the additional documents filed by the landlady which were not objected to by the tenant. Whatever it is. As observed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, even assuming that the monthly rent amount was Rs.2,000/-, no material has been produced by the tenant to prove the rental arrears calculated at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month have been paid to the landlady. Therefore, the finding given by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority with reference to the wilful default is perfectly correct. 10. In regard to the owner's occupation, the only objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the landlady cannot claim for owner's occupation on the ground that her brother has to run the business in the petition premises. Both the forums below would refer to the judgment rendered by this Court in 1984 (1) M.L.J. 171 (Angamuthammal vs. Muthu) and hold that brother of the landlady also would come under the same family as the word 'family' must be used in a broad sense and it would mean all those who are connected by blood relationship and therefore, brother also must be considered as belonging to the family of the landlady. 11. Under those circumstances, I do not find any merit in the civil revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1286 of 2004 is also dismissed.