Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition, filed under Sec.25(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the Order dated 10.01.2003 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul in R.C.A.No.6 of 1998, as stated therein.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order of concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authorities below, ordering Eviction under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act"). By Order dated 10.01.2003 in R.C.A.No.6 of 1998, the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Dindigul confirmed the Order of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Dindigul dated 22.06.1998 in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1997. The unsuccessful Tenant is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The Respondents/Landlords filed Eviction Petition against the Revision Petitioner / Tenant for evicting him from a Non-Residential Building. The Tenanted Building is in Door No.239 and 240, situated in Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul. The Demised Building belongs to the Respondents / Landlords, who are Husband and Wife. The Revision Petitioner / Tenant has become the Tenant for Commercial purposes; in the Demised Building, he is running a Hardware and Paint Shop and the Tenancy is admitted. The Rent payable by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is Rs.500/-. The First Respondent / Landlord is running a Vessel Shop under the name and style of "Kumbakonam Vessel Shop" in Door No.9 of Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul. Door No.9 is a Rented building and is owned by one Vijayalakshmi. Hence, the First Respondent wants to shift his Business to Door Nos.239 and 240. In the Demised Building, the First Respondent is having Godown for his Vessels. Since the Respondents / Landlords are in occupation of a part of the Building, the Landlords have filed the Eviction Petition under two grounds viz., Own use and Occupation of Non-Residential Building and Additional Accommodation. In the Demised Building, the First Respondent is having Godown for his Vessels. Since the Respondents / Landlords are in occupation of a part of the Building, the Landlords have filed the Eviction Petition under two grounds viz., Own use and Occupation of Non-Residential Building and Additional Accommodation. The Respondents / Landlords have filed the Petition for Eviction in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif, Dindigul seeking to evict the Revision Petitioner on two grounds viz.,: - a) under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act requiring the Petition Premises for the use and occupation of the First Respondent to carry on his Business, now being carried on by him, at No.9, Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul; b)under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act requiring the Petition Premises by way of additional accommodation on the ground that the First Respondent is using a portion of the Petition premises as a Godown. 3. The Petition for Eviction had been resisted by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant disputing the bonafide as well as the maintainability of the Eviction Petition. The contention of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is that since the Respondents / Landlords have got Buildings in several places, the requirement is not bonafide. The maintainability of the Eviction Petition has been objected on the ground that Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act cannot go together. 4. In the Trial, the First Respondent / Landlord was examined as P.W.1. Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. The Revision Petitioner / Tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.17 were marked. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the claim of the Respondents / Landlords is bonafide. Pointing out that the First Respondent / Landlord is not in occupation of any of the Buildings of his own for running his Vessel Shop "Kumbakonam Vessel Shop", the Rent Controller accepted the case of the Respondents / Landlords. Pointing out that the Tenant and his Son have got other premises, the Rent Controller found that the relative hardship caused to the Respondents / Landlords would be greater and on those findings, ordered Eviction by Order dated 22.06.1998. 5. Elaborately going into the details of the bonafide, the Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the claim of the Respondents / Landlords is bonafide. 5. Elaborately going into the details of the bonafide, the Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the claim of the Respondents / Landlords is bonafide. Going into the relative hardship of the Respondents / Landlords and Revision Petitioner / Tenant, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that Big Bazaar area is only suitable for particular kind of business i.e. Running the Vessel Shop. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the Revision Petitioner / Tenant cannot dictate terms to the Respondents / Landlords and confirmed the findings finding that the relative hardship to the Respondents / Landlords is greater. The Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated 10.01.2003 confirmed the Order of Eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Dindigul. 6. I.A.No.3 of 2000 and I.A.No.18 of 2001 in R.C.A.NO.6 OF 1998:- Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, these two Applications were filed by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant to receive the Documents as Additional Evidence and also to receive Additional Counter to prove that the Respondents / Landlords own Buildings in Door No.1, Chellandiamman Kovil Street and in Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street, which has been let out to Tenant – "Udayam Silvers" and to receive Additional Counter Statement on those lines. Finding that the answers regarding Door No.1, Chellandiamman Kovil Street and in Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street were already elicited during the Cross-examination of the First Respondent / Landlord (P.W.1), the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that the reception of Additional Evidence in the Appellate Stage is not necessitated and dismissed both the Applications. 7. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Authorities below, the Revision Petitioner / Tenant has preferred this Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Tenant assailed the Order of Eviction, contending that Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act cannot go together and that there cannot be any order of Eviction on both the grounds. Taking through the evidence, learned counsel has made elaborate submissions contending that the First Respondent / Landlord has got several Buildings in Dindigul. Taking through the evidence, learned counsel has made elaborate submissions contending that the First Respondent / Landlord has got several Buildings in Dindigul. Pointing out that Door No.1, Chellandiamman Kovil Street has been let out to Tenant and Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street has been let out to Tenant for running "Udayam Silvers", learned counsel submitted that the requirement of the First Respondent / Landlord would not fall within the ambit of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act and that there is no bonafide requirement. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon number of decisions. 8. C.M.P.No.2108 of 2003:- This Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant to receive Additional Document – Judgment in S.C.No.85 of 2001 on the file of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. According to the Revision Petitioner / Tenant, the De-facto Complainant – Kumar is the Car Driver of the Respondents / Landlords, who had lodged false complaint against the Sons of the Revision Petitioner, as if they have abused the said Kumar and committing an offence under Sec.3 (1)(x) of the S.C and S.T Prevention of Atrocities Act and the case had ended in Acquittal. This Judgment is sought to be produced as Additional Document to prove the malafide on the part of the Respondents / Landlords in filing the Petition for Eviction. 9. Countering the arguments of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents / Landlords has submitted that presently, the First Respondent / Landlord is not in occupation of any other Building of his own and that he requires the premises for shifting the premises from Door No.9, Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul, which is owned by one Vijayalakshmi, under whom the First Respondent is a Tenant. Pointing out that a part of the Tenanted Building is used by First Respondent / Landlord as a Godown, it is submitted that the First Respondent is reasonable in shifting his Vessel Shop to the Demised Building for having the Godown and the Shop together. Pointing out that a part of the Tenanted Building is used by First Respondent / Landlord as a Godown, it is submitted that the First Respondent is reasonable in shifting his Vessel Shop to the Demised Building for having the Godown and the Shop together. Drawing the attention of the Court to number of Buildings owned by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant and his Son, learned counsel for the Respondents / Landlords has submitted that in view of the order of Eviction, no hardship would be caused to the Revision Petitioner / Tenant; on the other hand, the relative hardship caused to the Respondents / Landlords would be greater if the Order of Eviction is to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Respondents / Landlords has placed reliance upon number of decisions. 10. Upon consideration of submissions by both sides, concurrent findings of the Courts below and other evidence and materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Revision Petition: - i.When the First Respondent / Landlord is carrying out his business – "Kumbakonam Vessel Shop" in a Rented Building, can it be said that his requirement is not bonafide? ii.Whether the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authorities, ordering Eviction suffer from erroneous approach and perversity warranting interference? 11. The Eviction Petition was filed on the ground of Own Use and Occupation (Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act) and Additional Accommodation (Sec.10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act). In cases of requirement for Own Use and Accommodation, the Landlord is to prove the following essential ingredients:- i.Building should be a Non-Residential Building; ii.the Landlord should be doing business; iii.Landlord should not be in occupation of a Non-Residential Building at the time of Petition; iv.Claim of Landlord should be bonafide. 12. There is no denying that Door Nos.239 and 240 Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul is a Non-Residential Building. One portion is in occupation of Revision Petitioner / Tenant, where he is running a Hardware and Paint Shop. In another portion, the First Respondent / Landlord is having his Godown. The First Respondent / Landlord is running a Vessel Shop under the name and style of "Kumbakonam Vessels Shop" in Door No.9, Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul. He is in occupation of the same as a Tenant under one Vijayalakshmi. In another portion, the First Respondent / Landlord is having his Godown. The First Respondent / Landlord is running a Vessel Shop under the name and style of "Kumbakonam Vessels Shop" in Door No.9, Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul. He is in occupation of the same as a Tenant under one Vijayalakshmi. The First Respondent / Landlord requires the Demised Building for his own use and occupation for running his Vessel Shop and as Additional Accommodation. When the Landlord is having the Godown in the Demised Building, it is quite natural and the legitimate expectation would be to have the Godown and the Shop in one place. When once the First Respondent / Landlord establishes that he is carrying on business in a rented premises and that he has no other Non-Residential Building of his own except the Building in respect of which Eviction is sought, the Authority is to enquire whether the claim made by the Respondents / Landlords is bonafide and not for any oblique purpose. 13. The contention of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is that the requirement of the Respondents / Landlords is not bonafide since they own various Buildings in the places as noted below:- i. Door No.20, Vathan Chetty Street; ii.Renga Naidu Lane; iii.Building at Taluk Office Road; iv.Door No.1 at Chellandiamman Koil Street; v.Building at D.No.7, Big Bazaar Street. 14. By careful appreciation of evidence, it is clear that the above Buildings do not fall within the ambit of Sec.10(3)(a)(iii)of the Rent Control Act – that he has no other Non-Residential Building of his own. While considering the question of bonafide, what is necessary to bear in mind is the mere desire on the part of the Landlords is not enough. The desire must be decided objectively and not subjectively. The burden also lies upon the Landlords to establish that they genuinely requires the premises for the purpose of continuing their own business. The principles stated above, which are not in dispute have been laid down in number of decisions by the Apex Court and this Court. The consistent views of the Courts would clearly reveal that the Landlords seeking eviction of Tenant from a Non-Residential Building under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act in order to succeed in their Petition, should establish that they genuinely require the premises, in addition to prove the other ingredients referred to in para (11). 15. The consistent views of the Courts would clearly reveal that the Landlords seeking eviction of Tenant from a Non-Residential Building under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act in order to succeed in their Petition, should establish that they genuinely require the premises, in addition to prove the other ingredients referred to in para (11). 15. Documents in respect of Vathan Chetty Street are marked as Exs.B.1 and B.2. Ex.B.1 is the Sale Deed in favour of the First Respondent / Landlord by Jayamani Nadar relating to Door No.20, Vathan Chetty Street. From the Recitals in Ex.B.1, it is seen that the Property is a Residential Premises, described as "Xl;L jhH;thuk; kw;Wk; fhypaplk;". Ex.B.2 is the Sale Deed in favour of the Second Respondent by Landlady Vijayalakshmi, Wife of Jayamani Nadar, selling portion of Door No.20, Vathan Chetty Street. Like Ex.B.1, Ex.B.2 also refers to the premises as the Residential House describing Xl;L jhH;thuk; kw;Wk; fhypaplk/; Obviously, property in Door No.20, Vathan Chetty Street is the Residential House. 16. The Property in Renga Naidu Lane belongs to the First Respondent's Brother's Wife viz., Packiyam. From Ex.A.2-Sale Deed, it is seen that the Property in Renga Naidu Lane is also a Residential Building. The Property at Taluk Office Road also belongs to the said Packiyam, Wife of Brama Nathan, who is Brother of First Respondent. From Ex.A.3-Sale Deed, it is clear that the Property in Taluk Office Road is also a Residential Building. 17. Door No.1, Chellandiamman Kovil Street, Dindigul:- The contention of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is that the First Respondent / Landlord is owning a Non-Residential Building bearing Door No.1 in Chellandiamman Kovil Street, Dindigul, which has been let out to Tenants for running TVS Suzuki Works. From Ex.A.4-Sale Deed, it is seen that the Building in Chellandiamman Kovil Street, Dindigul is about 1 ½ K.M away from the Petition mentioned Property. Further the Shops in the Building are small area of about 6 ft x 4 ft. Keeping in consideration, the distance and the small area, the Rent Control Authorities below have rightly found that the Building in Chellandiamman Kovil Street, Dindigul owned by the Second Respondent / Landlady would not be conducive for shifting the Vessel Shop Business to Chellandiamman Kovil Street, Dindigul. Keeping in consideration, the distance and the small area, the Rent Control Authorities below have rightly found that the Building in Chellandiamman Kovil Street, Dindigul owned by the Second Respondent / Landlady would not be conducive for shifting the Vessel Shop Business to Chellandiamman Kovil Street, Dindigul. The Revision Petitioner / Tenant is not right in contending that the First Respondent / Landlord is owning a Non-Residential Building of his own in Chellandiamman Kovil Street where he could run his Vessel Shop. 18. Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul:- As per Ex.A.1-Sale Deed, Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street is jointly owned by the First Respondent / Landlord and his Brother. The main contention of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is that Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul has been let out to "Sri Udayam Silvers", which was commenced only on 16.09.1998, which is subsequent to the order passed by the Trial Court and during the pendency of the Appeal. Main contention of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is that there was no impediment by the First Respondent to occupy Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul, which is at a short distance from the Demised Premises. It is further submitted that the ground floor portion has been let out to A.V.M.Jewellers and there was Godown let out to one Krishna Agency for the said purpose about three months back and that the First Floor portion was also let out to Tenants. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Tenant has contended that law is well settled that the failure of the Landlord to occupy the portions when fell vacant would nagative the claim of the Landlord. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Tenant has relied upon the following decisions:- i. 1998 (3) L.W. 209 (C.R.SUBRAMANIAM ..VS.. N.VASUDEVAN); ii. 1998 (2) S.C.C. 708 (SRI BALAJI KRISHNA HARD WARE STORES ..VS.. SRINIVASAIAH); iii.2000 T.L.N.J 347 (K.V.C.PANDITHURAI ..VS.. SUMMARATH BEEBI); iv. 2002 (2) L.W. 559 ; v. 2001 (2) M.L.J. 547 . 19. The contentions of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant does not merit acceptance and liable to be negatived on the simple ground that the Property in Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street is jointly owned by the First Respondent and his Brother. SUMMARATH BEEBI); iv. 2002 (2) L.W. 559 ; v. 2001 (2) M.L.J. 547 . 19. The contentions of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant does not merit acceptance and liable to be negatived on the simple ground that the Property in Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street is jointly owned by the First Respondent and his Brother. In his evidence, the First Respondent (P.W.1) has stated that there is dispute between the Brothers and because of the dispute, he is not in a position to occupy Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul. This part of evidence of P.W.1 is attacked on the ground that the Respondents / Landlords have not adduced proper evidence regarding the alleged dispute between Two Brothers. It is submitted that when the Brothers have jointly leased out the Building (Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street), the version of P.W.1 that there is dispute between him and his Brother is not to be accepted. In his evidence, when P.W.1 has categorically stated about the dispute between him and his Brother, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the Defendant, the version of the Respondents / Landlords cannot be doubted. Door No.7 does not exclusively belong to the First Respondent. The above decisions relied upon by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant arise on a different factual footing where the Landlord was found to be owning Non-Residential / Residential Building of his own. When Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street is jointly owned by the First Respondent / Landlord and his Brother, the principles in the above decisions cannot be applied to the case in hand. Since the Building (Door No.7) is jointly owned by the First Respondent and his Brother, the same cannot be occupied by the First Respondent without the willingness and consent of the Co-owner when there is dispute between them. It is not open to the Revision Petitioner / Tenant to contend that the First Respondent / Landlord has a Building of his own in Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street, which is at a short distance from the Tenanted Building. 20. Door No.9 of Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul, where the First Respondent is presently running the Vessel Shop "Kumbakonam Vessel Shop" is just about two shop away from the Demised Property. 20. Door No.9 of Big Bazaar Street, Dindigul, where the First Respondent is presently running the Vessel Shop "Kumbakonam Vessel Shop" is just about two shop away from the Demised Property. Under the said circumstances, it would be more beneficial and advantageous for the Respondents / Landlords to shift his Vessel Shop to the Tenanted Building where he is already having his Godown. While so, it would be unjustifiable to direct the First Respondent / Landlord to have his business either in Chellandiamman Kovil Street, which is about 1 ½ K.M. away from the Petition mentioned Property or in Door No.7, Big Bazar Street, which is not exclusively owned by him. The contentions advanced by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant that the Landlord owns several Buildings and that his requirement is not bonafide has no force. 21. What Sec.10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act requires is that Landlord should not occupy for the purpose of his business a Non-Residential Building, which is his own. When there is ample evidence on record to show that the Respondent is carrying on business in a rented premises and other Buildings pointed out by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant are not his own. The Rent Control Authorities below have rightly found that the requirement of the Respondents / Landlords fall within the ambit of Sec.10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act. 22. I.A.No.3 of 2000 and I.A.No.18 of 2001:- The Order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is vehemently opposed on the ground that I.A.No.3 of 2000 – Application to receive Additional Documents; I.A.No.18 of 2001 – Application to receive Additional Counter were not allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is contended that by adopting such rigidity in not allowing the Revision Petitioner / Tenant to produce Additional Documents relating to letting out Door No.1,Chellandiamman Kovil Street to TVS Suzuki and Door No.7, Big Bazaar Street to "Udayam Silvers", that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has misdirected itself in not affording opportunity to the Revision Petitioner / Tenant to produce Additional Evidence and file Additional Counter Statement, substantiating his contention of lack of bonafide. By careful consideration of findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, it is clear that the Applications were not allowed and Additional Evidence and Additional Counter Statement were not received on the ground that the relevant materials have already been brought on record during the Examination of the Witnesses particularly Cross-examination of P.W.1 and during the Chief-examination of R.W.1(Tenant). Since the evidence and materials were already on record, there is no error in the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in dismissing the Applications in I.A.Nos.3 of 2000 and 18 of 2001, much less affecting the correctness of the findings. 23. Main contention of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant is that the Eviction Petition on the grounds of Own Use and Occupation – Under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) and Additional Accommodation – Under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act cannot go together and that there cannot be any order of Eviction on both the grounds. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Tenant has relied upon the decision reported in EASWARAN CHETTIAR ..VS.. K. SUBBARAYAN (83 L.W.696). Referring to number of authorities in the said decision, a Division Bench of this Court has held, "....The trend of the majority view of the learned Judges of our court starting from the decision of the Division Bench in ACHUTAMAYYA ..VS.. SATYANARAYANA ( 1949 (2) M.L.J. 138 ) appears to be in one way. It is that if a Landlord is in possession of a Non-Residential building of his own and for purposes of carrying on a business, then he cannot ask for another non-residential building of his own in the occupation of a Tenant". The case in hand stands on different footing. Admittedly, in the Building Door No.9, Big Bazar Street, the First Respondent / Landlord is presently running his Vessel Shop as Tenant. The other Buildings pointed out by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant are not Non-Residential Building "of his own". When the First Respondent is running his business in a Rented premises and he does not own Non-Residential Building of his own, the above principles of the Division Bench of this Court cannot be applied to the case in hand. 24. Bonafide Requirement:- Bonafide Requirement is a question of fact. Referring to number of decisions, in the decision reported in SELVARAJ ..VS.. 24. Bonafide Requirement:- Bonafide Requirement is a question of fact. Referring to number of decisions, in the decision reported in SELVARAJ ..VS.. AMUDHAVALLI ( 1999 (3) L.W. 661 ) has held thus:- "...On the basis of the settled position of law, it is clear that the question whether the building is required bona fide by the landlords for their own occupation, is a question of fact. If findings are rendered by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, after evaluating the evidence, while exercising powers under Sec.25 of the Act, this Court is not entitled to reverse those findings of fact...." In the said decision, reliance has been placed upon the decision reported in SRI RAJALAKSHMI DYEING WORKS ..VS.. RANGASWAMY (A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1253) wherein the Supreme Court of India has laid down the principles in the following words with reference to Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act:- "....Therefore, despite the wide language employed in Section 25, the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with finding of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of subordinate authority. The power conferred on the High Court under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but in the words of UNTWALLIA, J. in DATTONPANT GOPALVARAE ..VS.. VITHALRAE MARUTHIRAO (A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1111) it is not wide enough to make the High Court a Second Court of First Appeal...." When there is ample and cogent evidence, showing the bonafide requirement, the bonafide of the Respondents / Landlords arrived at by the concurrent findings of the Authorities below cannot be interfered with. 25. C.M.P.No.2108 of 2003 :- This Application has been filed to receive Additional Document – Judgment in S.C.No.85 of 2001 on the file of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. S.C.No.85 of 2001 relates to the case in Crime No.10 of 2001 of Dindigul Town Police Station under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C and S.T.Prevention of Atrocities Act and 506(ii) I.P.C. The Accused are the Sons of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant. The Accused are alleged to have abused the De-facto Complainant, who is the Car Driver (belonging to Schedule Caste Community) of the Respondents / Landlords. In the said case, Karunakaran - Son of the Respondents / Landlords was examined as Prosecution Witness – P.W.4. The Accused are alleged to have abused the De-facto Complainant, who is the Car Driver (belonging to Schedule Caste Community) of the Respondents / Landlords. In the said case, Karunakaran - Son of the Respondents / Landlords was examined as Prosecution Witness – P.W.4. The case ended in acquittal on 08.11.2002. Onbehalf of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant, bonafide of the Respondents / Landlords is attacked on the ground that the Respondents / Landlords have instigated their Car Driver – De-facto Complainant-Kumar to foist a false case against the Son of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant and that there is malafide on the part of the Respondents / Landlords in filing the Petition for Eviction. This contention is to be negatived on the simple ground that the occurrence relating to S.C.No.85 of 2001 was on 07.12.2000. The Rent Control Petition for Eviction was filed in 1997. The Rent Controller has passed the order of Eviction on 22.06.1998. The occurrence in December 2000 cannot be related to the filing of the Petition in 1997. It is to be held that bonafide is to be tested at the time of filing of the Petition and that the same cannot be doubted on the subsequent change of events. The contention of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant in attacking the bonafide of the Respondents / Landlords on the basis of the subsequent occurrence relating to S.C.No.85 of 2001 does not merit acceptance. Hence, the Judgment in S.C.No.85 of 2001 cannot be received as Additional Evidence and the Petition in C.M.P.No.2108 of 2003 is liable to be dismissed. 26. Additional Accommodation:- As stated earlier, in the Tenanted Building – Door No.239 and 240, Big Bazaar Street, the First Respondent / Landlord is having his Godown. The Demised Building being Residential, the First Respondent / Landlord requires the same for Additional Accommodation for the purpose of having his Vessel Shop and Godown in one and the same place. For doing Vessel business, it is quite natural and reasonable that the First Respondent / Landlord requires the premises to have the Godown and the Shop in one place, which is in one Unit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that there is no repugnancy between the requirement for Own Use and Occupation and Additional Accommodation (Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act). 27. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that there is no repugnancy between the requirement for Own Use and Occupation and Additional Accommodation (Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act). 27. As alleged by the First Respondent / Landlord that the Rented premises, in which he was carrying on business is not sufficient for him and that he requires the premises (Door No.239 and 240) in occupation of the Tenant as Additional Accommodation, it is to be held that the Rented Premises is required as Additional Accommodation for running his shop. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the requirement for Additional Accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Rent Control Act is no way inconsistent with the requirement for own use and Occupation for Non-Residential Building. 28. As soon as the First Respondent / Landlord established that he reasonably and bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation, the burden of proving that greater hardship would be caused by passing a decree for eviction than by refusing it, is on the Tenant. It has been held in BAICHAND RATANSHI ..VS.. LAKSHMISHANKER TRIBHOVAN ( 1981 (3) S.C.C. 502 (506)) that "one of the most important acts in considering the question of greater hardship is whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the Landlord or the Tenant. The Court would have to put in the scale other circumstances which would tilt the balance of hardship on either side including financial means available to them for securing alternate accommodation either by the purchaser or by hiring on, the nature an extent of the business or other requirements of residential accommodation as the case may be. But, it must however be observed that existence of alternate accommodation is an important but a decisive factor. As the decision cannot turn on mere burden of proof, both the parties must lead evidence. The question whether there would be greater hardship caused to the Tenant by passing the Decree must necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of the each case." 29. In the light of the above principles, it is to be seen whether balance of convenience is in favour of Landlords and whether there is comparative hardship to the Tenant. The question whether there would be greater hardship caused to the Tenant by passing the Decree must necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of the each case." 29. In the light of the above principles, it is to be seen whether balance of convenience is in favour of Landlords and whether there is comparative hardship to the Tenant. From the evidence, it is clearly brought on record that the Tenant and his Son are owning atleast three other shops in Big Bazaar Street in the nearby place of rented premises. The rented premises is in Door No.239 and 240 of Big Bazaar Street. Door No.21 of Big Bazaar Street belongs to the Revision Petitioner / Tenant. Front portion measures 10 feet and the Rear portion is kept vacant. The said Door No.21 is just only 100 feet away from the Petition mentioned Property. The Revision Petitioner / Tenant's Son has owns Door No.247, Big Bazaar Street. The Tenant's Son had kept it vacant and later the same was let out to Farida Stores. When the Revision Petitioner / Tenant was questioned about the letting out of Door No.247 to Farida Stores by his Son, the Tenant has not denied the same. He was only evasive in stating that he would have to ask only his son about such letting out their Shop to Farida Stores. It is relevant to note that his Son has accompanied the Revision Petitioner to the Court on the date of hearing. When the Son has so accompanied his Father – Revision Petitioner to the Court – both of them together were contesting the Eviction Petition, the Revision Petitioner / Tenant cannot plead ignorance of letting out of the Building Door No.247 to Farida Stores. The evasive answer clearly indicates the malafide intention of the Revision Petitioner / Tenant in trying to suppress the relevant facts from the Court. 30. The Revision Petitioner / Tenant owns yet another shop in Big Bazaar Street. His son owns two shops in and around the same place. Totally, the Revision Petitioner / Tenant and his Son are owning Three shops. When the Revision Petitioner / Tenant and his Sons are having number of other shops, just near the Tenanted premises, it cannot be stated that the comparative hardship to the Revision Petitioner / Tenant would be more. Totally, the Revision Petitioner / Tenant and his Son are owning Three shops. When the Revision Petitioner / Tenant and his Sons are having number of other shops, just near the Tenanted premises, it cannot be stated that the comparative hardship to the Revision Petitioner / Tenant would be more. On the other hand, it is clearly established that the First Respondent / Landlord is running his business in a rented premises at Door No.9, Big Bazaar Street. On weighing the facts and circumstances and the comparative hardship, the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding that the Respondents / Landlords are entitled for Eviction is to be confirmed. 31. While exercising the Revisional Jurisdiction under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act, the High Court would not interfere with the findings of fact unless there is erroneous approach and perversity in appreciation of evidence. In proper appreciation of the evidence, the Rent Control Authorities have accepted the bonafide requirement of the Respondents / Landlords. The evidence has been well appreciated by the Rent Controller. The bonafide requirement for own use and occupation and the additional accommodation and the comparative hardship caused to the Landlords has been elaborately discussed by the Appellate Authority, which has confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller on the bonafide requirement. This Revision Petition is devoid of merits. Hence, under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act, the concurrent findings of the Authorities below cannot be interfered with. The Orders of the Appellate Authority does not suffer from any infirmity warranting any interference. This Civil Revision Petition is bound to fail. 33. Therefore, the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Dindigul in R.C.A.No.6 of 1998 dated 10.01.2003, confirming the Order of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Dindigul dated 22.06.1998 in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1997 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the costs of the Respondents / Landlords. For the reasons stated in Para (25), the C.M.P.No.2108 of 2003 is dismissed. Two months time is granted to the Revision Petitioner / Tenant for vacating and handing over vacant possession of the Building to the Respondents / Landlords.