Judgment :- Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and order of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act"), Tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 1. Before we deal with the contentious points and case laws cited by both sides, we may refer to brief facts:- The tenanted premises is a Residential House bearing Door No.18-I at Belmount, Bandishola, Ootacamund on a monthly rent of Rs.1,850/-. Respondent/Landlord is a retired Income Tax Officer, who is presently residing in a rented premises at Coimbatore. Landlord has been demanding Revision Petitioner/Tenant to vacate the demised premises. Landlord has filed Eviction Petition under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3) (a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings of "the Act" on the grounds of Wilful Default and for Own Use and Occupation to spend his retired life in his own premises. According to Landlord, he is not owning any premises in Ooty other than the Petition premises. 2. 2. Denying Wilful Default, Revision Petitioner/Tenant has resisted the Eviction Petition contending that the Landlords requirement on the ground of Own Use and Occupation is not genuine. According to the Tenant, in most of the occasions, Landlord had been receiving the rent in lumpsum without any demur and there is no default. 2. 3. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Taking note of the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- lying with the Landlord and observing that any non-payment of rent and rental arrears could have been adjusted from out of the advance amount, the Rent Controller held that the Landlord has not made out a case for Wilful Default. Pointing out that Landlord is a Senior Citizen retired from service and that he is not owning any other premises in Ooty, the Rent Controller held that the requirement for own use and occupation is bonafide and ordered eviction. 4. Holding that the Landlord is not owning any residential premises in Ooty and that his requirement is bonafide, Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of Own use and Occupation. Appellate Authority did not go into the question of Wilful Default under Sec.10 (2)(i) of the Act nor arguments were advanced before Appellate Authority on Wilful Default. 3. Appellate Authority did not go into the question of Wilful Default under Sec.10 (2)(i) of the Act nor arguments were advanced before Appellate Authority on Wilful Default. 3. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Authorities, learned counsel for Revision Petitioner has contended that the Courts below have considered the evidence of Landlord and not tested the bonafide requirement. It was further submitted that mere proof of ingredients of Sec.10 (3)(a)(i) of the Act is not sufficient and the Courts below ought to have tested the bonafide under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act. Drawing attention of Court to averments in Petition and the evidence, it was submitted that the Courts below have not gone into the bonafide and when bonafide requirement is not proved, the order of eviction is not sustainable. 4. Placing reliance upon numerous decisions, learned counsel for Respondent/Landlord has submitted that for order of eviction under Sec.10 (3)(a)(i) of the Act, the only ingredient to be proved is that the Landlord does not own any other building and that bonafide is alien for consideration. It was further submitted that when Tenant himself has admitted that Landlord owns no other residential building in Ooty, the bonafide need not be gone into. It was further submitted that the rent control proceedings being a summary proceedings, a strict and rigid approach cannot be adopted regarding pleadings and evidence. Much arguments was advanced contending that in Revision filed by the Tenant, Landlord can agitate the findings on other grounds on which eviction was refused by the Rent Control Authorities. Placing reliance upon number of decisions, learned counsel for Respondent/Landlord urged the Court to render a finding regarding Wilful Default. 5. The requirements of Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act are as follows:- i.The landlord requires the building for his occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family. ii.The building in the occupation of tenant is a residential building. iii.The landlord or any member of his family as the case may be is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town, or village concerned. iv.Such requirement is genuine or bonafide. 6. It is not disputed that the Landlord is a native of Ooty and a retired Government Servant. Tenant has fairly accepted before the Appellant Authority that the Landlord does not own any other building in Ooty except the tenanted premises. iv.Such requirement is genuine or bonafide. 6. It is not disputed that the Landlord is a native of Ooty and a retired Government Servant. Tenant has fairly accepted before the Appellant Authority that the Landlord does not own any other building in Ooty except the tenanted premises. There is no serious dispute that the Landlord resides in the rental premises in Coimbatore. When admittedly Landlord has no other building in Ooty, Tenant cannot plead that there is lack of bonafide. .7. Before the Rent Controller, Landlord has examined himself as P.W.1 and he has spoken about the bonafide requirement of the Lease hold premises for the purpose of his Own use and Occupation. In the Proof Affidavit, P.W.1 has sworn stating that his Landlord is pressing him to vacate and hand over possession of the premises in his occupation and that he requires petition premises for his Own use and Occupation to spend his retired life in his own premises. Evidence of P.W.1 is assailed contending that Landlord has not proved his bonafide requirement. It was further submitted that his bonafide requirement is to be tested in the light of his plea that he has retired from service and that his Landlord in Coimbatore is pressing him to vacate the premises. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that no document has been produced showing retirement or Notice from Landlord at Coimbatore pressing the Respondent to vacate the premises. P.W.1 was not cross-examined on his version regarding his retirement from service and that his Landlord in Coimbatore is pressing him to vacate the premises. Like in a regular suit, no strict proof of pleadings and evidence could be insisted upon. Rigorous test of proof applicable to regular proceedings cannot be applied to Rent Control Petitions. Evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to prove his bonafide requirement. .8. In the decision reported in Ravichandran and others Vs. Natarajan Nadar and others ( 2004 (1) M.L.J. 458 ), it was held as under:- ."...It is well settled position of law that in a case like this, the landlord who is carrying on his business in a rented premises, need not prove the danger of his being evicted from the said rented premises. In the instant case, the landlord has established the genuine present need for his own occupation...." 9. In the instant case, the landlord has established the genuine present need for his own occupation...." 9. Holding that Landlord is not bound to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts and rigorous test of proof applicable to Criminal Proceedings cannot be applied to eviction petition and Rent Control Act does not intend to place such handicap upon Landlord, in the decision reported in Akbar Ali and 4 others Vs. Donian Rodrigo and another ( 2000 (I) C.T.C. 287 ), A. RAMAN, J., has held as under:- "...The lower appellate Court has proceeded to discuss the case rather putting the odds against the landlords. The Rent Control Act is meant to the benefit both the tenant and the landlord. The idea is to protect the tenant from unjust eviction. It does not mean that the legitimate request of the landlord to recover possession should be turned down. The idea that the tenant is a victimised person, and he is a weaker section of the society no longer holds good. If certain circumstances are established, then the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction. It is not open to the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority to place an unwarranted rigidity and construe the request of the landlord too narrowly. As held by the Supreme Court in a recent decision the court must place itself in the armchair of the landlord and construe the request. A pedantic approach is unwarranted. The approach must be to see whether under circumstances, he is entitled to an order of eviction. The approach of the lower appellate Court as though it is a criminal proceeding it is trying and that the landlord must prove it beyond reasonable doubt is an approach unjust and uncalled for. The approach and the discussion by the lower appellate authority is as though they are deciding criminal proceedings. It is not a proper approach. By such approach, the appellate authority would be placing the landlord only at a disadvantage. The law does not intend to place such a handicap upon the landlord. Just as a tenant is entitled to be protected from unreasonable eviction, the landlord is equally entitled to get possession on reasonable ground. That benefit should not be deprived by placing a too narrow and to pedantic interpretation. The law does not intend to place such a handicap upon the landlord. Just as a tenant is entitled to be protected from unreasonable eviction, the landlord is equally entitled to get possession on reasonable ground. That benefit should not be deprived by placing a too narrow and to pedantic interpretation. The approach by the lower appellate court is more to pick holes in the case of the landlord, then to consider broadly whether the need is genuine or not. As a result, the lower Appellate Court has committed a grave error, which has led to miscarriage of justice...." 10. Bonafide Requirement:- Contending that mere desire is not sufficient and that bonafide need is to be set out and must be established by the Landlord, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner/Tenant placed reliance upon the decision reported in Sivasubramaniam Vs. Kashinath Pujari and others (2000 (1) M.L.J. 25), in which the Supreme Court has held as follows:- ".... The averments in the petition show that the landlord sought the possession of the premises by evicting the tenant merely on the ground that he desires to live independently away from his father. Mere desire of the landlord to live separately from his father cannot be attributed to the need for the premises occupied by the tenant. When a landlord desires a premises, the requirement of law is that the landlord must set out his need for the premises in his petition and establish that such a need is bonafide. The need must be bonafide genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. A desire is not a substitute of the need for the premises. The Court is of the view that the landlords desire to live separately was not a valid ground for the eviction of the tenants from the premises...." 11. The need of the Landlord should be genuine and that is the object of enacting clause (e) of Sec.10(3) of the Act. In the decision Hameediya Hardware Stores Vs. Mohanlal Sowcar (1988 (2) L.W. 1 (S.C.)), it has been observed that it is not enough that the landlord should merely desire to use or occupy the premises. What is necessary is that he should bonafide need for his own use and occupation or for occupation by any of the members of his family as held by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1059 and A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1596. 12. What is necessary is that he should bonafide need for his own use and occupation or for occupation by any of the members of his family as held by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1059 and A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1596. 12. Referring to the case of Hameediya Hardware Stores, in the decision reported in Sankaran and another Vs. Balasundaram and another ( 1994 (2) L.W. 152 ) it was held that mere desire to use or occupy premises is not enough and that bonafide need for own use and occupation should be proved and need should be genuine. The desire must be tested objectively and not subjectively. The burden lies upon the Landlord to establish that he genuinely requires the premises for his own use and occupation. 13. 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. 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. 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. ..." 14. Referring to Shive Sarup Guptas case, in the decision reported in South Indian Bank Ltd., Vs. Saroja Govindarajan ( 2001 (2) L.W. 647 ), K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. has held as follows:- "...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...." The proposition of bonafide requirement of Landlord, facts to be established and question to be posed was also reiterated in the decision reported in Adil Jamshed Frenchman (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and Others ( 2005 (2) S.C.C. 476 ). 15. From the above decisions, it is abundantly clear that bonafide requirement has to be proved and culled out from pleadings, facts and evidence. Vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust and Others ( 2005 (2) S.C.C. 476 ). 15. From the above decisions, it is abundantly clear that bonafide requirement has to be proved and culled out from pleadings, facts and evidence. In his Petition, P.W.1 has stated two fold reasons for his requirement viz., (i) that Respondents Landlord has been pressing the Respondent to vacate and hand over the rented premises in his occupation; (ii) Landlord requires petition premises for his own use and occupation to spend his retired life in his own premises. As noted earlier, evidence of P.W.1 substantiates the petition averments. By pleadings and by adducing oral evidence, Landlord has proved his bonafide requirement under Sec.10 (3)(a)(i) of the Act. Evidence of P.W.1 shows sincere and honest desire to be in occupation of petition premises. The requirement does not appear to be a mere pretext for vacating the Tenant on the part of the Landlord, under the guise of claiming to occupy the premises. 16. The requirement is also to be judged from the view of the Landlord. The Landlord is retired and aged and naturally likes to be in his own house after his retirement. The contention of the Tenant that Landlord is having Asthma complaint and the climate in Ooty may not be conducive to the Landlord are totally irrelevant. 17. Now, it is well settled that if the requirement of the Landlord under Sec.10 (3)(a)(i) of the Act is satisfied, it is not open to the Tenant to say that property is suitable or not suitable to the Landlords requirement. If the bonafide is established the Tenant cannot dictate terms to the Landlord. 18. Courts below have recorded concurrent findings on the bonafide requirement and the same cannot be interfered with. Sitting in Revision, High Court can exercise its powers under Sec.25 of the Act only if it is shown that the Judgment by the Appellate Authority is, in any way, illegal, irregular or improper. The High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as a Court of Appeal. On the scope of Revision under Section 25 of the Act, in the decision reported in K.M. Abdul Razzak Vs. The High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as a Court of Appeal. On the scope of Revision under Section 25 of the Act, in the decision reported in K.M. Abdul Razzak Vs. Damodharan ( 2001 (1) M.L.J. 37 (S.C.)), the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "...Under Sec.25 of the Act, it is not permissible for the High Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction to act as an 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 Courts below. The Court, therefore, hold that the High Court while allowing the revision transgressed its jurisdiction conferred upon it under Sec.25 of the Act...." Some of the other decisions regarding the scope of Revisional jurisdiction under Sec.25 of the Act are (i) Sherwood Educational Society Vs. Abid Namazie and two others (1997 I M.L.J. 445); (ii) Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (1998 II C.T.C. 679) and (iii) Irene Vs. V.S. Venkataraman and another (2002 I C.T.C. 631). 19. In consideration of evidence, Courts below have recorded concurrent findings as to bonafide requirement for Own Use and Occupation. 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 on Own Use and Occupation. 20. Wilful Default:- Rent Controller has dismissed eviction petition on the ground of Wilful Default. In the decree, there is a specific clause about the dismissal of Petition under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Act. In the Appeal preferred by the Tenant, on behalf of Landlord no arguments seem to have been advanced on the ground of Wilful Default. As against the grounds negatived, though the Landlord was not called upon to file a separate Appeal, in R.C.A. filed by Tenant, Landlord could have challenged the findings on the ground of Wilful Default. But that was not done. As against the grounds negatived, though the Landlord was not called upon to file a separate Appeal, in R.C.A. filed by Tenant, Landlord could have challenged the findings on the ground of Wilful Default. But that was not done. In Para(11) of its order, the Appellate Authority has simply stated that the Rent Controller declined to order Eviction under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Act and since no Cross-Appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the Petition under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Act, it is not necessary to look into the dismissal of the Petition under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Act. 21. Making elaborate submissions, learned counsel for Landlord has contended that without filing an Appeal, it was open to the Landlord to challenge the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissal of the Petition on the ground of Wilful Default. It was also contended that without filing Revision, Landlord can challenge the findings regarding Wilful Default recorded against the Landlord. It is no doubt true that the Landlord should be permitted to support the order of eviction and also disputing the grounds negatived by the Appellate Authority. While considering scope under Section 20 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which is in pari materia with Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in Malakath Sainuddin Vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman (2002 (4) L.W. 739), referring to the decisions in K. Venkataramani Vs. S. Aravamuthan and others (A.I.R. 1982 MADRAS 36), the Supreme Court has held, "17 ...... We are of the opinion that - .(i) ......... .(ii) Once a revision petition is entertained by the High Court, whichever be the party invoking the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court acquires jurisdiction to call for and examine the records of the authority subordinate to it. The records relating to any order and/or any proceedings, are available to be examined by the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the (a) legality, (b) regularity, or (c) propriety of the impugned order, including any part of the order, or proceedings. The only limitation on the scope of High Courts jurisdiction is that the order or proceedings sought to be scrutinized must be of the subordinate authority. The only limitation on the scope of High Courts jurisdiction is that the order or proceedings sought to be scrutinized must be of the subordinate authority. Any illegality, irregularity or impropriety coming to its notice is capable of being corrected by the High Court by passing such appropriate order or direction as the law requires and justice demands ....... 18. There is, therefore, no doubt in the present case that in a revision preferred under Section 20 of the Act by the Tenant laying challenge tot he propriety of the decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 11(8) of the Act, the Landlord could have urged that the order for eviction could be sustained under Section 11(3) of the Act also. The High Court has not erred in permitting the Landlord to urge such a plea in the revision filed by the Tenant though the Landlord did not file any revision of his own. A landlord who has succeeded in securing an order of eviction on one of the several grounds urged by him cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by such order. He cannot file a revision rather he can feel satisfied with the order. The person aggrieved is the tenant and in a revision preferred by the tenant it is only just and equitable that the landlord should be permitted to support the order of eviction by disputing correctness of the finding recorded in the impugned order whereby the availability of additional ground for eviction was negatived. Such a right has to be necessarily spelled out in favour of the landlord who has succeeded from the Court below else there would be grave injustice...." (Underlining added) 22. It is true that in a Revision preferred by the Tenant, Landlord should be permitted to support the order of Eviction by disputing correctness of the finding recorded against Landlord whereby availability of additional ground for eviction was negatived. Under Sec.23 of the Act, in the Appeal filed by the Tenant against the order of eviction on the ground of Owners Occupation and rejecting the ground of Wilful Default, the Landlord can challenge the order of Rent Controller rejecting the ground for Wilful Default even without filing an independent Appeal. Under Sec.23 of the Act, before confirming or setting aside the Judgment of the Trial Court the Appellate Authority should apply his mind by independent appreciation of evidence. Under Sec.23 of the Act, before confirming or setting aside the Judgment of the Trial Court the Appellate Authority should apply his mind by independent appreciation of evidence. The Appellate Authority is also entitled to take additional evidence. It has got all powers of a Rent Controller. When that being so, in the Appeal preferred by the Tenant, Respondent/Landlord ought to have advanced arguments on the ground of Wilful Default, which was negatived by the Rent Controller, and Landlord ought to have invited a finding from the Appellate Authority. Having not done so before the Appellate Authority, in Revision, the Respondent/Landlord cannot insist upon this Revisional Court to go into the factual aspects on the ground of Wilful Default as if a Court of Appellate Authority, which is impermissible under Sec.25 of the Act. Since Landlord has not advanced arguments on the ground of Wilful Default before the Appellate Authority and invited a finding from Appellate Authority on Wilful Default, this Court cannot go into the ground of Wilful Default and consider the propriety of the order of the Rent Controller rejecting the ground for Wilful Default. Therefore, I do not feel it necessary to refer to the numerous decisions relied upon by the Respondent/Landlord on the ground of Wilful Default. The concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Control Authorities and the order of eviction passed under Sec.10(3)(a)(i) of the Act is to be confirmed. 23. For the foregoing reasons, the Impugned Judgment dated 210. 2005 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, The Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam) in R.C.A.No.19 of 2005 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.19901 of 2005 is dismissed. Three months time from the date of this order is granted to the Revision Petitioner/Tenant to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the Respondent/Landlord, subject to the condition that the Revision Petitioner/Tenant files an Affidavit of Undertaking within three weeks from the date of this order.