JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree made in R.C.A.No.117 of 2012 by the tenant aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority on the ground of additional accommodation. 2. The respondent herein as the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.1135 of 2009 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai seeking for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of additional accommodation by contending that the petition mentioned premises is needed as additional accommodation for running his textile business since the portion in which he is carrying on such business is not sufficient. The said application was resisted by the tenant by contending that the ground floor portion which is in occupation of the landlord is sufficient to run his business and there is no hectic business activity of the landlord which needs for additional accommodation. It is also contended by the tenant that the landlord owns an extent of 1330 sq.ft. of vacant portion in the second floor which he can very well occupy. The learned Rent Controller considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidences let in by both sides and ordered eviction. The learned Rent Controller by relying on a decision of this Court rendered in (A.P.Abdul Rasheed vs. M/s.Hotel K.K.Residency rep. By Managing Partner K.M.Thajudeen) found that the tenant cannot dictate terms with regard to the portion of the premises which the landlord has to occupy. It is also found that the landlord has proved that he is already carrying on business and his need for additional accommodation is a bonafide one. The learned Rent Controller rejected the contention raised by the tenant that there is no expansion of the business by the landlord. It is also found by the Rent Controller that the tenant has not let in any evidence contra to the facts pleaded by the landlord with regard to the hardship to be caused if the petition mentioned premises is not given to him as additional accommodation. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the learned Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered eviction. Further appeal filed by the tenant before the appellate authority was dismissed by specifically holding that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to what is to be his requirement. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the learned Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered eviction. Further appeal filed by the tenant before the appellate authority was dismissed by specifically holding that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to what is to be his requirement. It is also found by the appellate court that the landlord has proved his bonafide requirement by showing that the business is improving year by year. Insofar as the question of hardship is concerned, the appellate authority found that the hardship would be more to the landlord than the tenant since the tenant is having several branches in the City of Chennai as well as all over the Tamil Nadu. Such factual finding rendered by both the Courts below are challenged before this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Admittedly the landlord is carrying on his business in the ground floor and the tenant is carrying on the business in the first floor. The landlord seeks for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation to occupy the first floor portion so that he can run the business both in ground and first floor. It is needless to say that when a business is being run in the ground floor, the premises sought as additional accommodation, if has the immediate access to the premises which is already in occupation of the landlord, certainly such premises will be highly beneficial than that of the other premises which is not having the immediate access to the premises of the landlord. By keeping in mind that the eviction is sought for on the ground of additional accommodation, the contention of the tenant that the second floor which became vacant has not been utilized by the landlord has to be rejected, in view of the above position. In any event, the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to which of the portion he has to seek as additional accommodation. 4. The learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have concurrently found that the bonafide of the landlord is proved by establishing the claim for additional accommodation for expansion of the business of the landlord. The only objection of the petitioner/tenant is that the business of the landlord does not require such additional accommodation. 4. The learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have concurrently found that the bonafide of the landlord is proved by establishing the claim for additional accommodation for expansion of the business of the landlord. The only objection of the petitioner/tenant is that the business of the landlord does not require such additional accommodation. When both the Courts below have concurrently found that the bonafide has been proved and the business of the landlord is also requiring additional accommodation, the petitioner as the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to which of the portion he has to occupy as additional accommodation. It is for the landlord to select the portion which he seeks as additional accommodation by taking note of his convenience in conducting the said business. 5. Considering all these facts and circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly ordered eviction and I find no merits in this Civil Revision Petition to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition deserves no merit and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner filed an affidavit of undertaking before this Court today and prayed for time till 10.02.2014 to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the landlord. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord was also served with a copy of the said affidavit of undertaking and he has no objection for granting time till 10.02.2014. Accordingly the affidavit of undertaking filed by the petitioner/tenant is placed on record and he is granted time to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant portion of the same to the landlord/respondent on or before 10.02.2014 without driving the landlord to resort the eviction proceedings. 6. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.