Judgment :- Challenging concurrent findings and order of eviction on the ground of Additional Accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Tenant has preferred this Revision. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original rank in R.C.O.P.No.254 of 2001 on the file of Rent Controller (XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai). 1. Petitioners filed R.C.O.P.No.254 of 2001 under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act") for Owners Occupation stating that they are Doctors running a Polyclinic in the name and style of "Jaydev Polyclinic" at the petition mentioned premises. The Respondent/Tenant is running a Medical Shop in the tenanted portion of the schedule property in an area of 120 sq.ft. Monthly rent is Rs.3,000/-. Petitioners/Landlords filed Eviction Petition requiring premises for establishing Trauma Care Unit (for short "ICU") since schedule property is closest to Operation Theatre and opening of ICU at schedule property will be ideal and their need is bonafide. 3. 2. Denying allegations in the Petition, the Respondent/Tenant contested the Petition raising objection as to maintainability of Petition as the Landlords never accepted Respondent as their Tenant either in O.S.No.5128 of 2000 or in the Eviction Petition. According to Respondent/Tenant, having taken a stand that the Respondent is only a permissive occupier, Landlord is estopped from claiming otherwise. Respondent is in occupation of only an extent of 120 sq.ft and that is insufficient to establish ICU and claim of Landlords is not bonafide. 3. 3. Petitioners examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Respondent was examined as R.W.1 and documentary evidence was adduced. Upon analysis of evidence, Rent Controller found that Landlords requirement for ICU is bonafide. Rent Controller pointed out offering of alternative site, which was not accepted by Tenant on the plea of "Vasthu". Aggrieved by order of Eviction, the Tenant has preferred Appeal. On the basis of Judgment in O.S.No.5128 of 2000, the Appellate Authority held that the Respondent is Statutory Tenant. Appellate Authority confirmed the order of Eviction finding that the requirement of Petitioners/Landlords is bonafide. Appellate Authority also held that relative hardship is also only in favour of the Landlords, which is challenged in this Revision. 4. On the basis of Judgment in O.S.No.5128 of 2000, the Appellate Authority held that the Respondent is Statutory Tenant. Appellate Authority confirmed the order of Eviction finding that the requirement of Petitioners/Landlords is bonafide. Appellate Authority also held that relative hardship is also only in favour of the Landlords, which is challenged in this Revision. 4. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has contended that the Courts below ought to have held that there is no Landlord – Tenant relationship between Petitioners and Respondent. Placing reliance upon number of decisions, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner interalia raised following contentions:- / When Petitioner had pleaded that there is no Landlord and Tenant relationship and having filed Petition without prejudice to their claim, eviction petition is not maintainable; / Bonafide requirement is not proved and lack of pleadings was not properly appreciated by courts below; / Under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act, hardship need to be proved and relative hardship to Tenant would outweigh advantages to the Landlords since alternative space is available to Landlords to construct ICU. 5. Countering arguments, learned Counsel for Respondents has submitted that Landlords profession is service oriented and proper treatment is to be given to the emergency cases. Contending that ICU has to be adjacent to Operation Theatre, learned counsel submitted that hardship caused to Landlords and service rendered by them would be greater. It was further submitted that on superstitious belief of Vasthu, the Tenant had not accepted the alternative site offered by Landlords, which only shows lack of bonafide on the part of Tenant. 6. There is no dispute that Landlords are running "Jaydev Polyclinic" in Poonamallee High Road. Demised property is appurtenant to main hospital building where Tenant is running Medical Shop. 7. Maintainability of Petition that Petitioners have not accepted Landlord – Tenant relationship:- In paragraph 13 of Eviction Petition, it is averred "The petitioners are filing this petition without prejudice to the rights that the respondent is not a statutory tenant". Drawing attention of Court to the above averments, learned counsel for Tenant has submitted that Petition under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act can be maintainable only when Landlord and Tenant relationship is admitted. In the instant case, Landlords never recognised the Respondent as their Tenant. Drawing attention of Court to the above averments, learned counsel for Tenant has submitted that Petition under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act can be maintainable only when Landlord and Tenant relationship is admitted. In the instant case, Landlords never recognised the Respondent as their Tenant. It was further submitted that courts below ought to have held that there is no Landlord – Tenant relationship to maintain the Eviction Petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Tenant has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in Nainammal Bibi Vs Umma Habiba Bibi ( 1975 (2) M.L.J. 29 ); Dr. H.S. Rikhy and others Vs The New Delhi Municipal Committee (A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 554) and R. Thulasidoss Vs Rani @ Rajalakshmi and 4 others (1999 (1) L.W.668). 8. The above contention proceeds on the averments in the Written Statement filed by Landlords in O.S.No.5128 of 2000. Suit in O.S.No.5128 of 2000 was filed by Tenant for Permanent Injunction restraining Landlords from evicting him on the ground that he is their statutory Tenant. In the said suit, Landlords have filed Written Statement denying any Lease Agreement and Respondent being a Statutory Tenant. In the said Suit, Landlords contended that they have allowed Respondent to carry on business in the Suit Premises only on leave and licence basis and that the Respondent is not a statutory Tenant. The above defence of Landlords was negatived by Civil Court and in the said Suit, Civil Court has upheld that Respondent is a statutory tenant under Petitioners. 9. When Civil Court has recognised status of Respondent as a Statutory Tenant, merely on the statement in eviction petition (i.e., without prejudice to the rights that the Respondent is not a statutory tenant) it cannot be concluded that there was no relationship of Landlord and Tenant between the parties. Averments made in eviction petition cannot negate findings of Civil Court and Judgment thereon. 10. Contending that Appellate Authority has not adverted to this aspect and order of courts below as to maintainability of Petition is erroneous, learned counsel for the Tenant has placed reliance upon the decision reported in P. Panneerselvam Vs A. Baylis ( 2005 (5) C.T.C. 17 ). In the said case, it was held that Plaintiff must succeed or fail on the strength of his own case and not on the basis of weakness of defendants case. In the said case, it was held that Plaintiff must succeed or fail on the strength of his own case and not on the basis of weakness of defendants case. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the acceptance of Civil Court decree in O.S.No.5128 of 2000 by the Landlords is not evident from the pleadings in Rent Control Petition or in oral or documentary evidence available on record and while so, the Landlords are not entitled to maintain Eviction Petition under the Rent Control Act. 11. Placing reliance upon the decisions reported in Abubakar Abdul Inamdar ..Vs.. Harun Abdul Inamdar (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 112), M/s. Roshan Lal Kuthiala ..Vs.. Raja Rana Yogendra Chandra (A.I.R. 1996 HIMACHAL PRADESH 14); and Gulabrao Balwantrao Shinde and others ..Vs.. Chhabubai Balwantrao Shinde and others (2002 A.I.R. S.C.W. 4587) it was contended that when no plea is raised in the pleadings, no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of claim of litigating party, the Court cannot make out a new case not pleaded. It was further contended that existence of Landlord - Tenant relationship is a condition precedent and when the same is not pleaded in the Petition, Eviction Petition is not maintainable and on that score alone the order of Rent Control Appellate Authority is to be set aside. 12. The decisions cited supra arose in regular suits/appeals, for which provisions of C.P.C are applicable. In my considered view, contention of lack of pleadings has not caused prejudice to the case of Tenant in any way. In the decision reported in G.R. Ragupathy Vs Dr. K. Sankar ( 1996 (2) L.W. 494 ) S.S. SUBRAMANI, J. has held that pleadings before Rent Controller cannot be given that much of importance given to pleadings in a Suit before Civil Court. Proceeding before a Rent Control Court is summary in nature and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not fully made applicable to the extent provided under the Statute. We must further note that the Rent Control Court is not Civil Court and the Act itself is more or less a self-contained Code, so far as the relationship of Landlord and Tenant is concerned. Parties have went through trial, aware of the real matter in issue and any averment in the Petition regarding status of respondent cannot be a ground to reject the petition. 13. Parties have went through trial, aware of the real matter in issue and any averment in the Petition regarding status of respondent cannot be a ground to reject the petition. 13. Misquoting of provision – Can it be a ground for disallowing Eviction:- Originally, Eviction Petition was filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Tenant has raised objection as to maintainability of Petition filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Later, Eviction Petition was amended as under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act. The contention as to misquoting of provision has no force. It is well settled that on account of misquoting of provision of law, a party is not disentitled to get relief sought for provided he is otherwise entitled to the same on facts and evidence. Petition was filed for eviction on the ground of Additional Accommodation for putting up ICU adjacent to Operation Theatre. However, the provision was quoted as Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The Tenant has filed Counter Stating that Petition under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act alone was maintainable. When the parties have understood the case and adduced evidence, the question of lack of pleadings or misquoting of provision cannot be a ground to disallow eviction. 14. Whether requirement is bonafide:- The expression "bonafide" is not a meaningless Jargon and it has proper connotation and has been explained by several judgments of the Apex Court. A pari materia provision of Delhi Rent Control Act has been considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Shive Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta ( 1999 (6) S.C.C. 222 ). The Apex Court while considering the bona fide requirement has held thus:- "...The term "bonafide" refers to a state of mind. The requirement is not mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much higher than mere desire. The phrase "required bonafide" is suggestive to legislative intent that a mere desire, which is the outcome of a whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need, which is an outcome of a sincere honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or any other member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. A requirement in the sense of felt need, which is an outcome of a sincere honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or any other member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from any angle, in setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bonafide would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The judge of facts should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself – whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, the positive material brought on record by the Tenant enabling the Court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretense or pretext for getting rid of the Tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance of the Landlord. ..." .15. Referring to the above said Judgment, in the decision reported in South Indian Bank Ltd., Vs Saroja Govindarajan ( 2001 (2) L.W. 647 ), K. Raviraja Pandian, J. has held, ."...Thus, the Supreme Court has given a categorical guideline to find out as to the bonafide requirement of the premises by the landlord. The bonafide requirement has to be culled out from the averments contained in the Petition and from the evidence adduced in the proceedings and on such objective determination, if it is proved with certain materials, that the requirement is bonafide, then, definitely, under the provisions of the Act, the Landlord is entitled to an order of eviction. The proof required for proving the said bonafide is also only tot he satisfaction of the Court to arrive at an objective determination and it is not always necessary to prove the bonafide beyond all reasonable doubt as in criminal proceedings...." .16. Going into the concept of bonafide requirement, in the decision reported in Siddalingamma and another ..Vs.. The proof required for proving the said bonafide is also only tot he satisfaction of the Court to arrive at an objective determination and it is not always necessary to prove the bonafide beyond all reasonable doubt as in criminal proceedings...." .16. Going into the concept of bonafide requirement, in the decision reported in Siddalingamma and another ..Vs.. Mamtha Shenoy (2002 (1) L.W. 600), it was held that Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of Tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation which treats the landlord with some sympathy. It was further held as follows:- ."...The concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. If the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself and dwell into lesser premises so as to protect the tenants continued occupation in tenancy premises. In Deena Nath ..Vs.. Pooran Lal ( 2001 (5) S.C.C. 705 ), this Court has held that bonafide requirement has to be distinguished from a mere whim or fanciful desire. The bonafide requirement is in presenti and must be manifested in actual need so as to convince the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire...." .17. Keeping these principles in mind, let us consider whether requirement of landlords is bonafide. In their evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that premises is bonafide required for converting it as ICU. In the order of Rent Controller, a passage from "Principles of Critical Care" by Farokh Erach Undwadia has been extracted as to location of ICU. "The ICU should as far as possible be in close relation to the operation theatre and the recovery room. This allows easy transport of critically ill patients from the ICU to the Theatre and vice versa". Admittedly, behind tenanted premises, there is consulting room and then Operation Theatre. Quite naturally, the premises is required to have ICU near the operation theatre. This allows easy transport of critically ill patients from the ICU to the Theatre and vice versa". Admittedly, behind tenanted premises, there is consulting room and then Operation Theatre. Quite naturally, the premises is required to have ICU near the operation theatre. Referring to oral and documentary evidence, courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the requirement of tenanted premises is bonafide for converting into as ICU and concurrent findings of Courts below as to bonafide requirement cannot be interfered with. 18. Much arguments were advanced contending that Landlords have more space to construct additional building where Cardiac and ICU can be located. Drawing attention of Court to oral evidence, learned counsel for the Tenant contended that ICU could be established elsewhere in the hospital since there is sufficient space available inside and around reception area as may be evident from Engineers Report annexed to Advocate Commissioners Report. It was also contended that Ambulance or other vehicles coming from outside and carrying the patients can be conveniently stopped near the main entrance opening at the northern end of Poonamallee High Road, because open space available between the main entrance and the boundary wall, which is about 12.6 ft. Learned counsel for Tenant has further contended that case of Landlords that there is lack of space for constructing ICU inside the hospital is only to evict the Tenant by hook or crook. 19. As noticed earlier, behind tenanted premises, there is consulting room, behind which there is operation theatre. As per Medical Management, ICU as far as possible be in close relation to the Operation Theatre and recovery room. When bonafide requirement is proved, the Landlord is the best Judge of his requirement for residential or business purposes. The Tenant cannot dictate terms as to which portion Landlord should occupy. Landlord is the best Judge and has complete freedom in the matter (vide Ragavendra Kumar ..Vs.. Firm Prem Machinary (A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 534), Venkataramanasamy ..Vs.. S.Sethuraman ( 2003 (2) M.L.J. 376 ) and Varadhan ..Vs.. Kannammal and others ( 2004 (3) C.T.C. 462 ). .20. Bonafide requirement is further assailed contending that Second Petitioners Wife is also running Medical Shop within hospital premises and Petitioners seek to evict the Tenant only for the purpose of running Medical Shop by Second Petitioners Wife. This contention is devoid of merits. Admittedly, Second Petitioners Wife is running Medical Shop within hospital premises. .20. Bonafide requirement is further assailed contending that Second Petitioners Wife is also running Medical Shop within hospital premises and Petitioners seek to evict the Tenant only for the purpose of running Medical Shop by Second Petitioners Wife. This contention is devoid of merits. Admittedly, Second Petitioners Wife is running Medical Shop within hospital premises. It is not as if the Petitioner/Landlord wanted to throw out the Tenant one way or other. Landlords have shown alternative site within the premises where Canteen is being run. In the alternative site shown to the Tenant, where Canteen is being run, a Well was closed. The Tenant has refused to take that alternative site on the superstitious belief of Vasthu and that he may not prosper in his business if he shifts to the alternative site. Bonafide of Landlords is amply evident from their conduct of showing alternative space to the Tenant. The genuineness of bonafide requirement is eloquent from the facts and evidence. Requirement pleaded is neither a pretext nor ruse adopted by Landlords to get rid off the Tenant. 21. Yet another submission made by Tenant was that in between Operation Theatre and tenanted premises, there is a pucca wall and that Landlords have not produced any Sanction Plan to show the proposed alterations. The requirement is for Additional Accommodation under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act. For requirement under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act or other provisions, it is not mandatory to produce Sanction Plan to prove bonafide. Alteration works to be done within the premises, for which Sanction Plan may or may not be necessitated. Non-production of Sanction Plan for carrying out alteration is not a ground to doubt bonafide requirement. 22. Relative Hardship:- Landlords are running hospital, which is Public Service. When the work of Landlords is service oriented, they are expected to render best service. As per Management of Hospital Services, it is desirable to have ICU near operation Theatre. There is nothing to indicate that other portions are having similar advantages like the one in the occupation of the Tenant. On the other hand, Medical Shop could be run in any part of the premises. In such cases, hardship caused to the Tenant will not outweigh the advantages to the Landlord whose work is service oriented. 23. Relative hardship is to be analysed on the facts and evidence of each case. On the other hand, Medical Shop could be run in any part of the premises. In such cases, hardship caused to the Tenant will not outweigh the advantages to the Landlord whose work is service oriented. 23. Relative hardship is to be analysed on the facts and evidence of each case. In the Petition, Landlords have raised plea about advantages having ICU in the tenanted premises. Landlords have averred that they are doing public service especially for the Cardiac outpatients, Accident Trauma Care patients. Ultimately, medication is very important and use of staircase will cause serious hardship and prejudice and even may result in loss of life. P.Ws.1 and 2 have also spoken about the relative hardship that would be caused to the services rendered by them. 24. Contention regarding lack of pleadings or vague pleadings regarding relative hardship has no merits. The Parties have understood the case and adduced evidence and question of lack of evidence does not arise. In the decision reported in Karur Ghee Stores represented by V.Periasamy ..Vs.. N.Palaniappan and Another (2001 (3) C.T.C. 206) it was held that lack of pleadings regarding relative hardship is not material if the parties are aware of the issue involved. Mere technicalities should not come in the way of giving effect to logical conclusion. .25. In the decision reported in Andal Vs Salim ( 2000 (1) M.L.J. 135 ), S.S. Subramani, J., has held as follows:- ."...When relative hardship is considered, the most important factor to be considered is, whether an alternative building is available for the tenant to continue his business. It need not necessarily be shown that the business could be carried on the alternative building as profitably as in the original building, because, profits depends more upon economic factors than anything else. Eviction on the ground of bonafide own use is not disallowed even if the tenant is not getting an alternative building in the same locality, i.e., in the same place. The Court also cannot presume that if the tenant shifts to another building, he will be put to great hardship and he will not be in a position to do business profitably. The Court also cannot recognise the fact that a particular area is suitable only for a particular kind of business. The Court also cannot presume that if the tenant shifts to another building, he will be put to great hardship and he will not be in a position to do business profitably. The Court also cannot recognise the fact that a particular area is suitable only for a particular kind of business. Merely because in a particular street or locality a particular business alone is carried on, it does not follow that other business cannot survive in that area...." 26. Under Section 25 of the Act, it is not permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction to act as Appellate Court to re-appraise or re-assess the evidence afresh as an Appellate Court and come to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Court below. In K.M. Abdul Razzack Vs Damodharan (2001 (1) M.L.J. (S.C.) 37 = 2000 (4) Supreme 575 ) in Para 5, it was held as follows:- "5....It is not permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction to act as an Appellate Court to reappraise or reassess the evidence afresh as an appellate Court as an appellate Court and come to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the Court below. We, therefore, hold that the High Court while allowing the revision transgressed its jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 25 of the Act...." 27. In consideration of evidence, Courts below have recorded concurrent findings as to bonafide requirement for Additional Accommodation. Unless there is perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by authorities below, revisional Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act will not interfere with the concurrent findings. There is absolutely nothing to show that there is perversity in the appreciation of evidence by authorities below while arriving at the concurrent findings and there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by Courts below. 28. For the foregoing reasons, the Impugned Order dated 03.08.2006 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) in R.C.A.No.1394 of 2003 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Two months time from the date of this order is granted to the Revision Petitioner/Tenant to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the Respondents/Landlords. The connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.