Judgment :- The tenant is the revision petitioner before this court. 2. The respondent/landlord filed petition under section 10(3)(c) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 seeking eviction of the premises on the ground that he required the premises in occupation of the tenant for his additional accommodation. 3. The landlord has contended that the demised property is a room measuring approximately 10x12 feet and the same is part and parcel of the building bearing door number 40. The petitioner and his family members are residing in the rear portion of the said building. The petitioner is a heart patient and is also suffering from cervical spondylitis. The Doctor has advised him to take complete bed rest. For the purpose of leading a peaceful life, securing his privacy free from irritating noise and disturbance, he is in need of the demised portion for additional accommodation. The petitioners wife is also suffering from hypertension, diabetes and coronary artery disease. With the aforesaid contentions, the landlord laid the petition seeking the premises for additional accommodation. 4. In the counter, the tenant, resisted the plea for eviction on the ground that the demised premises which actually measures 8x12 feet is bound by walls on three sides. There is only one door which faces the road. The demised premises has neither ventilators nor windows on any of the sides. The tenant is a Tailor by profession aged 68 years. He has built up a small clientele in the locality. The landlord, who is in occupation of two rooms, a big hall, kitchen, bath rooms and vacant space, is not in requirement of the demised premises for additional accommodation. Contending that there is no bonas fide in the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation, the tenant prays for dismissal of the petition seeking eviction. 5. Therent controller held as follows:- The landlord failed to establish the nature of the building used by him for residence. He did not adduce any evidence to establish that the demised premises would be useful for his peaceful accommodation. The landlord has not established the extent of portion in his occupation and the nature of requirement. The building itself is a non-residential one. Therefore, the requirement for additional accommodation for residential purpose is contrary to the use of the building which has only one door facing the street. The landlord has not established the extent of portion in his occupation and the nature of requirement. The building itself is a non-residential one. Therefore, the requirement for additional accommodation for residential purpose is contrary to the use of the building which has only one door facing the street. Having thus observed, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition filed for eviction. 6. The second Additional District Judge, Pudhucherry, who took up the matter in appeal at the instance of the landlord, found as follows:- The observation of the rent controller that there is no bona fide in the requirement projected by the landlord is wrong inasmuch as the Doctors had advised the landlord and his wife to take bed rest. The landlord has required the premises for privacy and also for leading a peaceful life which is substantiated by oral evidence. The rent controller failed to note that the demised building is a part of the main building in occupation of the landlord. The treatment taken by the landlord and his wife for the ailments stood established. The Rent Controller failed to note that there is only a dummy wall which bifurcates the demised premises from that of the portion in occupation of the landlord. The tenant, being a Tailor, can shift the residential location whereas the landlord, an age old man, who is in need of peaceful atmosphere, cannot go out of the premises seeking privacy to lead a peaceful life. Having thus held, the appellate authority set aside the judgment of the rent controller and ordered eviction as prayed for by the landlord. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant would submit that the landlord is in occupation of a very spacious premises. There is no bona fides in his requirement for his additional accommodation. Even during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the first floor became vacant and it was let out to a Company. Now, the landlord contends that his son has started occupying the first floor of the premises. It is his submission that if at all the requirement of the landlord is bona fide, he would have occupied the first floor and would not have let it out to a Company. The demised portion has only one door towards road. Therefore, the demised portion cannot be effectively and conveniently used by the landlord. It is his submission that if at all the requirement of the landlord is bona fide, he would have occupied the first floor and would not have let it out to a Company. The demised portion has only one door towards road. Therefore, the demised portion cannot be effectively and conveniently used by the landlord. The last submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the non-residential portion in occupation of the tenant cannot be sought for additional accommodation by the landlord for residential purpose. 8. Leaned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord would submit that the coronary ailment of the landlord and his wife stood established. At his ripe old age, the landlord and his wife are badly in need of a serene atmosphere which would be conducive for their peaceful living. The first floor which was evicted by the tenant is, in fact, in occupation of the son of the landlord. Further, the landlord, who is an age old man with all major ailments, cannot occupy the first floor as it would be difficult for him and his wife to climb up the stairs. It is his further submission that the demised premises is only a part of the residential portion in occupation of the landlord. Further, there is no bar for seeking additional accommodation for residential purpose, a non-residential premises in occupation of the tenant. Therefore, he would submit that the revision is not sustainable. 9. On fact, it has been established by the landlord that he and his wife are afflicted with heart ailments. They have been advised by the Doctor to take bed rest. The old couple, in fact, require a serene atmosphere to lead a peaceful life. The materials on record would establish that the demised premises was originally a part of the residential portion in occupation of the landlord. Bifurcation has been done by putting up a dummy wall. Therefore, it is not as if the demised portion cannot be used effectively and conveniently by the landlord by just removing the dummy wall. 10. It is inevidence that the landlord, who chose to let out the first floor which became vacant during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, inducted his son to occupy the first floor premises. Therefore, it is not as if the demised portion cannot be used effectively and conveniently by the landlord by just removing the dummy wall. 10. It is inevidence that the landlord, who chose to let out the first floor which became vacant during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, inducted his son to occupy the first floor premises. If at all, the landlord and his wife are hale and healthy, of course, one would expect them to occupy the first floor in order to satisfy their need for additional accommodation. The age old couple are found to be totally unhealthy on account of many a disease afflicted them. We cannot expect them to go to first floor climbing up the steps. Letting out the first floor to a third party or inducting his son subsequently to occupy the first floor would not taint the bona fides in the requirement for additional accommodation pleaded by the landlord, inasmuch as the landlord and his wife would not be in a position to occupy the first floor at this ripe old age with major diseases. 11. Coming to the relative hardship, I find that the tenant is carrying on tailoring business. His major client is found to be Shree Arbindo Ashram. The tenant can very well establish his business in tailoring if he relocates his business premises whereas the old couple in the present condition cannot be asked to go and search a peaceful place in a different location. 12. Of course, the premises already in occupation of the landlord may be sufficient for leading a normal life. But, it is found that they are facing an abnormal health condition. If their serenity is offended, they will definitely face serious health hazards. Therefore, their requirement is found to be bona fide despite the fact that they are already in a spacious premises and the first floor portion which fell vacant was given to their son. 13. The Supreme Court in M/s.VARIETY EMPORIUM v. V.R.M.MOHD. IBRAHIM ( AIR 1985 SC 207 ) has held that in a proceeding for ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement, the requirement must continue to exist on the date when the proceedings is finally disposed of either in appeal or in revision, unless the statute prescribes to the contrary. 114. IBRAHIM ( AIR 1985 SC 207 ) has held that in a proceeding for ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement, the requirement must continue to exist on the date when the proceedings is finally disposed of either in appeal or in revision, unless the statute prescribes to the contrary. 114. In the instant case, it is true that the first floor became vacant during the pendency of the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. The first floor which became vacant was first leased out to a tenant and thereafter it was given to the very son of the landlord. This court has already observed that the vacancy of the first floor would not in any way materially alter the requirement of the landlord who is an age old man afflicted with many a disease inasmuch as it would be impossible for him to climb up the stairs and live over there. Therefore, the aforesaid ratio will not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In that very same judgment of the Supreme Court, it is relevant to refer to the interesting observation made by the Supreme Court in para 12 which reads as follows:- "Apart from this, it is quite disparaging to describe a tenants attempt to resist eviction by lawful means as a "hue and cry". And, it is inequitous in the extreme that any court of law, and least of all a Rent Act tribunal which has to deal with a human problem of great magnitude, should regard it as a matter of no moment that an order of eviction will throw the tenant on the street. A judge does not have to wear a shoe in order to know where it pinches. Therefore, he does not have to face the prospect of being driven to the street in order to realise what it means. His training, legal equipment and experience of life are his tools of education and social awareness. We do no suggest that a decree of eviction can never be passed against a tenant but, whether the provisions of a law specifically require it or not, the court has to have regard for all the aspects of the matter before it and the foreseeable consequences of the order which it proposes to pass." 115. We do no suggest that a decree of eviction can never be passed against a tenant but, whether the provisions of a law specifically require it or not, the court has to have regard for all the aspects of the matter before it and the foreseeable consequences of the order which it proposes to pass." 115. That was a case where inspite of the fact that about four premises out of seven premises became vacant in the aftermath of the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. The landlord chose not to occupy those premises to satisfy their requirement for additional accommodation. In the aforesaid background, the above observation was made by the Supreme Court. In the instant case, as already pointed out by this court, the vacancy of the first floor has no nexus to the requirement for additional accommodation sought for by the landlord and his wife. A serene privacy is the minimum requirement of the age old ailing couple. 116. In a case where additional accommodation of a building sought for is located away from the building already in occupation of the landlord, this court in JOTHI AMMAL v. KULANDAI VADIVEL ( 1999(1) MLJ 35 ) has held that the landlord cannot sustain the objection for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation when the building sought for additional accommodation is located away from the building already in occupation of the landlord. 117. In the instant case, it is found on facts that the demised premises was originally a part of the portion in occupation of the landlord. By putting up a dummy wall, the demised premises was separated and was let out for commercial purpose. This court has already held that the demised portion can be effectively and conveniently enjoyed alongwith the portion already in occupation of the landlord. Therefore, the aforesaid ratio will have no bearing on the facts and circumstances of this case. 18. The issue as to whether the landlord could require the demised non-residential portion for additional accommodation for residential purpose arose before the Supreme Court in SHRI BALAGANESAN METALS v. M.N.SHANMUGHAM CHETTY (100 LW 1149). The Supreme Court emphatically held that an application filed by the landlord for eviction of a tenant from a nonresidential premises for additional accommodation for residential purpose is quite maintainable. The Supreme Court emphatically held that an application filed by the landlord for eviction of a tenant from a nonresidential premises for additional accommodation for residential purpose is quite maintainable. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant that the landlord/tenant cannot seek eviction of the non-residential premises for additional accommodation for residential purpose does not hold water. 119. Coming to the relative hardship, the rent control appellate authority has rightly found that the tenant, who is carrying on tailoring business in the demised premises can very well relocate his business, but, it would be unfair and unjust to direct a landlord to go in search of a place with serenity to spend the evening of his life with his wife who is afflicted with major diseases. The hardship that would be faced by the landlord would be more than that would be encountered by the tenant, in case eviction petition is not ordered as prayed for. 120. In view of the above, the court finds that there is no merit in the revision petition filed by the tenant. Therefore, the revision fails and it stands dismissed. Time for vacating the premises: two months. There is no order as to costs. M.P.No.1 of 2007 for interim stay also stands dismissed. M.P.No.2 of 2007 for vacating interim stay stands allowed.