Judgment :- 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.54 of 2008 dated 11.08.2009 confirming the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller made in RCOP.No.1381 of 2006 dated 27.11.2007. 2. The Revision Petitioner herein was the respondent / tenant and the respondent herein was the petitioner / landlord before the learned Rent Controller. 3. For convenience sake, the status of the parties as landlord and tenant are maintained in this judgment. 4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner / landlord before the Rent Controller would be as follows:- The petitioner is the owner of a shop portion measuring about 8 x 6 sq.ft at Old D.No.1/1, New D.No.3, Vadamalai Street, Purasaivakkam, Chennai. The respondent is the tenant in the aforesaid shop under the petitioner. The monthly rent of the said shop is Rs.800/- p.m. The respondent is carrying on Muthu Cycle Stores. The petitioner is carrying on business in black and white digital xerox, PCO and DTP in a shop portion measuring 7' X 17' adjacent to the respondent shop and the petitioner's business is on expansion. The petitioner needs the shop in occupation of the respondent for additionally accommodating his developing business. Only a thin wall is separating his shop and the respondent's shop. The petitioner bona fide needs the premises for additional accommodation. The relative hardship of the petitioner, if the respondent does not vacate the portion under the occupation, will outweigh the hardship that may be caused to the respondent as the respondent can always shift his cycle shop to any part of the city in Chennai and can have a lucrative business. Therefore, the respondent has to be evicted on the ground of additional accommodation. 5. The brief facts of the case of the respondent / tenant in the counter statement before the Rent Controller would be thus: The petition has been filed by the petitioner with ulterior motive to evict the respondent. The respondent is carrying on business in a small shop measuring 8 x 6 sq.ft and he depends on it for his survival. The respondent is prompt and regular in payment of rent. The petitioner's need for additional accommodation is neither bonafide nor true. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed. 6. The respondent is carrying on business in a small shop measuring 8 x 6 sq.ft and he depends on it for his survival. The respondent is prompt and regular in payment of rent. The petitioner's need for additional accommodation is neither bonafide nor true. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the pleadings in the petition and the counter statement, the learned Rent Controller had framed the point for consideration as to whether the petitioner / landlord was entitled to get the relief of eviction against the respondent / tenant on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller had enquired the matter and after perusal of the evidence, he had passed an order of eviction and granted two months time to the respondent / tenant for vacating the premises. 7. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the respondent / tenant had preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.54 of 2008 challenging the said eviction order. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority heard the arguments of both sides and dismissed the appeal confirming the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller and granted two months time for vacating the premises. The tenant, who was aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, has preferred the present Revision questioning the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. 8. Heard Mr. Inamdar Ameenur Rahman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner / tenant and Mr. C.P. Pattabiraman, learned counsel for the respondent / landlord. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner / tenant would submit in his argument that the tenant was inducted in the demised building for conducting cycle spare parts business and monthly rent was fixed at Rs.800/-per month and the tenant was regular in paying the rent. He would further submit that he was continuing as a tenant for over 20 years and he was an old tenant and the tenant was taking out his livelihood only through the shop held by him in the premises. He would further submit that the landlord, who wanted to evict the tenant from the building in his occupation and want to induct a new tenant for higher rent and for receiving unlawful premium from him, had refused to receive the rent payable to the building. He would further submit that the landlord, who wanted to evict the tenant from the building in his occupation and want to induct a new tenant for higher rent and for receiving unlawful premium from him, had refused to receive the rent payable to the building. Therefore, the tenant sent the rent through Money Orders, which includes the already paid rents to which no receipt was given by the landlord. He would further submit that the eviction petition filed by the landlord on the ground of additional accommodation, which is not bona fide, should not have been ordered by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. He would further submit that even if the demised building was required by the landlord for his additional accommodation, the other tenements vacated their premises and the said subsequent vacating of premises by other tenants would be sufficient for the landlord to have his growing business in the said premises. He would also submit that the landlord having not occupied the said premises to accommodate his growing business, even if true, cannot ask the only livelihood of the tenant for his family. He would also submit that the courts below did not find that the first floor portion was vacant and the landlord's additional accommodation could have been housed in that floor and the specific requirement of the present building, in which the tenant is in occupation, is not a bona fide one. He would also submit that the courts below did not note the evidence that the partition wall in between the building in possession of the tenant and the landlord was the supporting wall to the entire building and it cannot be removed for the purpose of expanding the business of landlord and for putting up other machineries towards his business. He would also submit in his argument that the landlord, one year prior to the filing of the petition, had let out the adjacent portion on the left side of the landlord's shop to a fast-food business, but he had come forward with the requirement of additional accommodation from the tenant which is lying on the right side of his shop. He would further submit that all these factual aspects have not been considered by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority to reach a correct decision and the bona fide cannot also be established by the landlord. He would also submit that the relative hardship is certainly lying in favour of the tenant if he vacated the premises, his family has to suffer and the school going children of the tenant would suffer for want of earnings of the tenant. He would further submit that the advantage likely to reap by the landlord will be lesser than the hardship likely to meet by the tenant in vacating the premises. He would also draw the attention of the Court to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (1) SCC 472 (Ram Nibas Gagar (dead) by LRs – vs - Debojyoti Das and others) for the principle that subsequent events can be taken note of and relief could be decided in respect of the eviction order on the ground of additional accommodation. He would also bring to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2005 (5) ALT 735 (M/s. Sri Srinivasa Enterprises & others – vs - Narayan Das)) for the same principle. He would, therefore, submit that the requirement of the landlord for the demised building in possession of the respondent was not bona fide required by the landlord and request the Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and consequently, to dismiss the RCOP filed before the learned Rent Controller. He would further request the Court to allow the Revision. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent / landlord would submit in his argument that the landlord and tenant relationship is admitted and it is for the tenant to pay the monthly rent regularly without any default. He would also submit that the tenant was irregular in paying the rent. However, the landlord was receiving the rent from the tenant even though he sent the rents through Money Orders. He would also submit that the tenant was irregular in paying the rent. However, the landlord was receiving the rent from the tenant even though he sent the rents through Money Orders. He would further submit that the landlord was having business in a shop adjacent to the demised building in occupation of the tenant and he is conducting the business with xerox machines and photographic machine with public call telephone and the business is growing day-by-day and he was advised to put more two machines with computers and he has no space in the said shop and the premises in occupation of the tenant which is located adjacent to his right side would be more convenient to house all those machineries in the said building after removing the thin partition wall in between the two premises. He would further submit that though the partition wall is a single lined brick wall, it did not support the building constructed in the first floor and so on. He would also submit that the said fact was admitted by the respondent in his cross examination and therefore, there is no need for any proof by examination of any Engineer or Expert to that effect. He would further submit that the evidence produced by the landlord would amply prove the existing business at the shop adjacent to the demised building and it was growing day-by-day and has got number of customers. He would further submit that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant that the landlord could have accommodated the shop lying on his left side, when it was vacated and without letting out to fast-food shop before the filing of eviction petition cannot be correct because the business of the landlord was not flourishing at that time and therefore, he had let it to a third party for housing the fast-food Shop. He would also submit that the cause of action for filing a petition for additional accommodation has arisen only after the said vacating of the premises and letting it to fast-food shop and therefore, the tenant cannot harp upon the said induction of the tenant which happened prior to the sending of notice. He would also submit that the cause of action for filing a petition for additional accommodation has arisen only after the said vacating of the premises and letting it to fast-food shop and therefore, the tenant cannot harp upon the said induction of the tenant which happened prior to the sending of notice. He would also submit that the vacating of two tenants has not been shown to have adjacently located to the shop of the landlord and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant that the subsequent events have to be taken note of and the relief should have been moulded, cannot be sustained. He would also submit that the first floor portion is a residential portion and it cannot be asked for any additional accommodation. He would also submit that the second floor portion is also far away and the customers would not go to the second floor portion for their purpose and needs and therefore, the adjacent shop in possession of the tenant alone is required towards additional accommodation in order to expand the business of the landlord. He would further submit that the requirement of the building in possession of the tenant is very much essential for expansion of the business of the landlord and it would be more convenient if the tenant is vacating the premises for that purpose. He would also submit that the non-availability of any other place in the City for housing the business of the tenant is not a disadvantage as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in this regard. He would also submit that the personal life of the tenant cannot be involved in considering the advantages and hardship to be considered for deciding the relative hardship theory. He would also submit that apart from this shop held by the tenant in the demised building the tenant has an auto-rickshaw running for his earnings and therefore, there could not be any sufferings if he vacated the premises. He would also submit that the tenant could accommodate his cycle spare parts shop in the City which is in an area of 6' x 8', at any place, but the difficulty in getting the another tenement for housing the business of the landlord adjacent to the premises of landlord is very difficult. He would also submit that the tenant could accommodate his cycle spare parts shop in the City which is in an area of 6' x 8', at any place, but the difficulty in getting the another tenement for housing the business of the landlord adjacent to the premises of landlord is very difficult. He would also draw the attention of the Court to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1979 (1) SCC 273 (Bega Begum – vs - Abdul Ahad Khan) in support of his argument. He would also cite a judgment of this Court reported in 1965 (II) MLJ 236 (C.N.Nambudiri - vs - Edwin Israel) for the principle that the tenant cannot direct of dictate the landlord to vacate other tenants and come to him thereafter for asking additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. He would cite a judgment of this Court reported in 1997 MLJ 496 (Kuthalingam - vs - Jahir Hussain) for the principle that the tenant cannot dictate terms as to sufficiency of the accommodation. He would also cite a judgment of this Court reported in 1972 TLNJ 270 (Bapaniah Chetty and another – vs - Sha Jerupchand Pukhraj) for the principle that the inconvenience caused to the tenant to vacate the premises occupied by him will not deprive the landlord of his bona fide right to require for additional accommodation. A judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (I) MLJ 135 (Andal – vs - Salim) in support of the principle that even if the tenant does not get an alternative building in the same locality, it cannot be a ground to doubt the bona fide of the landlord. He would further submit in his arguments that the landlord is requiring the premises which is adjacent to the shop put up by the landlord and it is the most convenient place where the tenant had put up the cycle shop to which the tenant is not very much interested in conducting the shop and therefore, the said premises is bona fide required for expanding the business of the landlord and is required towards the additional accommodation and the concurrent finding rendered by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority need not be interfered and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition may be dismissed. 11. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 12. 11. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 12. The relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the demised building is admitted and the rent payable to the premises was at Rs.800/-per month and was regularly paid by the tenant through Money Orders and the demised building measures 8' x 6' feet in which the tenant had put up a cycle spare parts shop and it is being conducted by him for more than 15 years as a tenant. The dispute in between the parties is that the demised building is required by the landlord for his additional accommodation to expand his business which is lying adjacent to the shop. The shop held by the landlord adjacent to the demised building is also admitted. According to the evidence of landlord, he commenced the business in the year 2004. Even though, it has been suggested that it was commenced only in the year 2005 and whatever it may be the business of the landlord is in existence in the adjacent shop from the year 2005. The evidence of landlord as PW.1 would go to show that he is conducting the business in the building lying to the west of the demised building from the year 2005 onwards and the documentary evidence produced in Exs.P1 to P7 would also prove the same. Similarly, the cycle spare parts shop is also being conducted by the tenant in the demised building. The learned Rent Controller had appraised the evidence and had come to the conclusion that the business of the landlord had increased many fold and it is evident from Ex.P8 - Bill Book and therefore, some space is required for the landlord to expand his business. The learned Rent Controller was also satisfied that the premises held by the landlord adjacent to the demised building required the demised building also for its expansion after removing the partition wall. No doubt it is true that the tenant, while he was examined as RW.1, admitted that the partition wall was an one brick lined wall. Therefore, it is quite clear that it is not a supportive wall to bear the weight of the building. Therefore, the argument advanced in that aspect that an Engineer should have been examined, has no legs to stand. Therefore, it is quite clear that it is not a supportive wall to bear the weight of the building. Therefore, the argument advanced in that aspect that an Engineer should have been examined, has no legs to stand. It is also seen from the decision of the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority that the business of the landlord had increased and he required some space for additional accommodation. 13. However, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the tenant that the two tenements were vacated subsequent to the filing of the petition, but the landlord has not accommodated his business there, but is insisting upon the building in occupation of the tenant. However, it has not been elicited that two other tenements have been vacated after the filing of the eviction petition against the tenant during the examination of the landlord. However, the landlord has spoken in his cross examination that he has filed an eviction petition against the fast-food shop. When it has been stated that the fast-food Shop has been evicted by the landlord and the landlord has not occupied the said premises, it could be said that there would not be any requirement of additional accommodation regarding the petition building. But, it has not been shown to the Court whether the fast-food shop has also been evicted on the reason of additional accommodation or own occupation to expand the business. It has also not been shown by the tenant that the said fast-food Shop was vacated and it was also occupied by the landlord for expanding his business. Unless these points are shown or proved, it cannot be said that the requirement of the additional accommodation were not bona fide. The alleged subsequent events of vacating the tenements have not been shown through the evidence, and therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the tenant for the said principle would not be helpful for the tenant. 14. As regards the development of the business of the landlord, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the business of the landlord was developed and he required additional space for housing his business. The said finding of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is purely on the basis of the evidence adduced by the landlord with the support of the documentary evidence. The said finding of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is purely on the basis of the evidence adduced by the landlord with the support of the documentary evidence. Since it is a finding of a fact, there could not be any interference from this Court as it was based upon the evidence adduced before the learned Rent Controller. Now, the only point to be decided is relative hardship. 15. Before coming to the point of relative hardship, I could see that the option of the landlord should be exercised first with other tenants and thereafter to come for asking the petition mentioned building for additional accommodation cannot be sustained in view of the rulings given by this Court cited by the learned counsel for the landlord in 1997 MLJ 496 and 1972 TLNJ 270 cited supra. The relative hardship which has necessarily to be decided by the learned Rent Controller as well as learned Rent Control Appellate Authority was also considered by both the courts below and they found the same in favour of the landlord. It is quite clear from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1979 (1) SCC 273 (Bega Begum-vs-Abdul Ahad Khan) cited supra that the non-availability of mere accommodation in the same locality for the same purpose is not a disadvantage against eviction. The relevant passage explaining the said principle is as follows:- "27. Thus, what is established from the evidence of the defendants is that if they are ejected, they might not get a house as big as the house in dispute in the very locality where the disputed house is situated. There is no clear evidence in the first place to show that there is no other business locality in the city at all or that if there is any other business locality attempts were made by the defendants but they were unable to get any house. Furthermore, as indicated above, the plaintiffs' necessity is imperative and their requirement is undoubtedly reasonable, because the income which they are receiving, including the rent of the house which is in the region of Rs.5000/- per year, is not sufficient to maintain them. Thus, on a careful comparison and assessment of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the landlord and the tenant it seems to us that the scale is tilted in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, on a careful comparison and assessment of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the landlord and the tenant it seems to us that the scale is tilted in favour of the plaintiffs. The inconvenience, loss and trouble resulting from denial of a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiffs far outweigh the prejudice or the inconvenience which will be caused to the defendants. The High Court has unfortunately not weighed the evidence from this point of view." 16. A similar view has been reached by this Court in the judgment reported in 2000 (1) MLJ 135 (Andal-vs-Salim), which is as follows:- "22. 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 bona fide 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. 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." 17. In view of the aforesaid judgments, we could see that the eviction of the tenant from the demised building and that he may not find a suitable place for housing his shop are not considered as disadvantages to the tenant. No doubt, it is true that the tenant has to look after his accommodation after eviction and to see that his earnings are sufficient for leading his livelihood. The advantage of the landlord if found more than the disadvantage of the tenant then naturally, the relative hardship should be decided in favour of the landlord. No doubt, it is true that the tenant has to look after his accommodation after eviction and to see that his earnings are sufficient for leading his livelihood. The advantage of the landlord if found more than the disadvantage of the tenant then naturally, the relative hardship should be decided in favour of the landlord. The tenant was given much time by the learned Rent Controller and similarly by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and the tenant had ample time to shift his shop to a convenient place in that locality, but he has not availed that opportunity. Furthermore, the evidence produced by the tenant in Exs.R1 to R6 are not sufficient to outweigh the advantage of the landlord in getting an order of eviction. The evidence of RW.2 and RW.3 are ex-facie interested witnesses, who were brought by the tenant for the purpose of adducing evidence in his favour. Rightly their evidence was not relied upon by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the disadvantage of the tenant did not outweigh the advantage of the landlord is quite correct and the order of confirmation passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority cannot be interfered. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had considered every aspect with reference to the evidence and the findings reached were also on a correct perception of evidence. Therefore, the finding reached by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in confirming the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller need not be interfered. Consequently, the eviction order passed against the tenant which was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority are hereby confirmed and thus, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the eviction order passed against the tenant by the learned Rent Controller which was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority are hereby confirmed. At request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, time granted for vacating the premises is six months. No order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Undertaking affidavit should be filed by the tenant before the closure of this Court for ensuing summer vacation 2012.