ORDER Since these two Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common order dated 30-07-2008 in R.A.No.265 of 2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, these revisions are disposed of together by a common order. The respondent/land lady filed eviction petition against the revision petitioner/tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises bearing No. 5-9-233, Abids Road, Hyderabad on the ground of wilful default in payment of property tax under Section 10 (2)(i) and bonafide requirement of the petition schedule premises for her self occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, stating that she is the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises by virtue of oral gift deed dated 12-07-2000 and a memorandum-cum-Past Gift was executed by her mother on 2-08-2000 in her favour. The revision petitioner/tenant obtained the petition schedule mulgi on 2-4-1978 by executing a registered lease deed in favour of her mother for a period of five years commencing from 1-4-1978 on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- with an option to the landlady to renew the same for a period of five years with enhanced rent of Rs.315/- per month. Again renewed the lease for a period of five years to enhance the rent of Rs.450/- per month, payable on or before 5th of succeeding month and the present rent is Rs.450/-per month. The tenancy was transferred in favour of the respondent and the revision petitioner was paying rent to the respondent. Apart from the rent, the tenant also agreed to pay municipal property tax, enhanced municipal taxes in respect of the petition schedule premises amounting to Rs.1,100/-. Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.1,750/- and later Rs.1,850/-. It is stated that the revision petitioner/tenant has committed wilful default in payment of property tax and is due from 4-1-2001 to 31-03-2002 at the rate of Rs.1,750/- and Rs.1,850/- per year. As the tenant has not paid the said amount even after several requests and demands made by the respondent landlady, as such, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises. Apart from that it is also stated that the respondent/land lady is a Post Graduate in MS-Ophthalmology and the same was completed in the year 1986 and the land lady got married in the year 1987 and she shifted to her in-laws place i.e., Aligarh. Apart from that it is also stated that the respondent/land lady is a Post Graduate in MS-Ophthalmology and the same was completed in the year 1986 and the land lady got married in the year 1987 and she shifted to her in-laws place i.e., Aligarh. She further states that she practiced as a Doctor at several places in India and also attached as Assistant to Dr. Masood Dublin, Ireland in the year 1995. The respondent land lady has five children, two children are studying in Hyderabad and one daughter and two sons are studying in Indian School at Bahrain. The respondent also intends shift to Hyderabad with an intention to open an Eye Clinic Consultation in the petition schedule premises, hence, there is bonafide personal requirement for her. It is stated that the respondent/land lady has no other premises of her own in twin cities, as such, the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. 2. The revision petitioner/tenant filed a counter before the Rent Controller, denying the allegations made by the respondent/land lady. The tenant further stated that the respondent land lady in collusion with her mother Smt. Ashraf Sultana filed the eviction petition. It is also stated that there are no arrears of tax payable and there was no complaint even if collection of tax was made long after the due date by the MCH authorities. It is further stated that the Municipal Authorities introduced the new scheme i.e., self assessment scheme. Neither the landlady nor her mother submitted returns of self assessment of tax and intimated the same to the tenant. The Municipal Authorities from long time did not come and collect the tax, perhaps on the ground that no return of self assessment has been made by the person whose name finds in the record or any of the owners. In the month of March, 2003, the Municipal authorities asked the tenant to pay the amount by submitting self assessment form and accordingly, as demanded, the amount was paid. There is no delay in payment of property tax and there was no arrears of tax due payable for the period ending 31-3-2003. It is stated that the intention of respondent/land lady and her mother is to compel the tenant to agree for enhancement of rent. 3. The respondent land lady is examined as Pw.1 and Exs.P1 to P11 are marked. It is stated that the intention of respondent/land lady and her mother is to compel the tenant to agree for enhancement of rent. 3. The respondent land lady is examined as Pw.1 and Exs.P1 to P11 are marked. The revision petitioner himself is examined as Rw.1 and Exs.R1 to R7 are marked. 4. The Rent Controller by order dated 12-08-2004 allowed the eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement of the petition schedule property and negatived the plea of respondent land lady regarding the wilful default. Against the same, the revision petitioner/tenant filed R.A.No. 265 of 2004 and the respondent land lady filed Cross Objections regarding the finding in respect of wilful default as the finding went against the respondent land lady. 5. The Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad/Appellate Authority dismissed the R.A.No.265 of 2004 filed by the revision petitioner/tenant and allowed the Cross Objections filed by the respondent/land lady by a common order dated 30-07-2008. Against the same, the revision petitioner/tenant filed C.R.P.No.4075 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.4714 of 2008 is filed against the order allowing the Cross Objections. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Prabhakar Sripada vehemently contends that the respondent/land lady is an NRI, and she was always outside the country and she never during her career started any clinic. No notice was issued to the revision petitioner stating that the respondent land lady requires the premises for starting her clinic and it goes to show that the respondent/land lady has no intention to run the clinic in the petition schedule premises. He also contends that the mother of the respondent/land lady filed two eviction petitions and both of them were dismissed and having lost the same, she gifted the petition schedule premises to respondent/land lady with an object to prepare a ground for evicting the petitioner. Actually, there is no bonafide requirement for the respondent land lady for occupation of the schedule premises. It is also contended that the respondent/land lady entered into a tacit understanding with a builder for the sale of schedule premises for conversion into shopping complex. Actually, there is no bonafide requirement for the respondent land lady for occupation of the schedule premises. It is also contended that the respondent/land lady entered into a tacit understanding with a builder for the sale of schedule premises for conversion into shopping complex. He also contends that I.A.No.297 of 2008, 241/2008 and 242/2008 were filed for adducing additional evidence, reopening and recalling the witnesses to that the respondent/land lady had tacit understanding with the builder and the said builder had made an attempt for eviction of the revision petitioner by offering a shop in the premises to be constructed. The Court below erred in dismissing the above applications which prevented the revision petitioner from proving his case. He also contended that the respondent/land lady is an NRI Doctor and whereas the revision petitioner is a petty cloth merchant and in case of eviction, hardship will be caused to the tenant. He also contends that tax was not paid for some period as the Municipal Corporation introduced self assessment Scheme and in pursuance of the same, neither the land lady nor her mother filed any declaration and as the Municipal Authorities have not come and collected the tax and immediately after the municipal authorities demanded the municipal tax, he paid the tax, as such, there is no wilful default in payment of property tax. At any rate, the amount of default from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2002 is meagre i.e., at the rate of Rs.1,750 and Rs.1,850/- and the revision petitioner/tenant was always paying the tax to the municipality as and when demanded and there was no complaint regarding the same for the last so many years. He contends that for the purpose of eviction that was made a ground deliberately. He also contends that the trial Court basing on the facts rightly came to the conclusion that there was no wilful default in payment of tax on the part of the revision petitioner. The appellate Court without any basis reversed the said finding in the Cross Objections filed by the respondent/land lady. The findings of the appellate Court in respect of the wilful default of payment of tax is perverse and liable to be set aside. The appellate Court without any basis reversed the said finding in the Cross Objections filed by the respondent/land lady. The findings of the appellate Court in respect of the wilful default of payment of tax is perverse and liable to be set aside. He also contends that merely because there is some delay in payment of municipal tax that cannot be termed as wilful default, because the municipality introduced self assessment procedure regarding the payment of tax, therefore, tax could not be paid in time and this cannot be considered as wilful default as envisaged in the Act. In support of his contentions he relied on the Judgments reported in Kranti Swaroop Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., and another, Appellants Vs. Smt. Kanta Bai Asawa and others, Respondents (AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1216), Hotel Kings and others Vs. Sara Farhan Lukmani and others (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 202), J.JermonsVs. Aliammal and others (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 382), Dines Kumar Vs Yusuf Ali (AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2679) and Omer Bin Salam Askari Vs. Dr. Yousuf ( 1998 (2) ALD 258 ). 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Sri R.A. Achuthanand contends that both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence, rendered findings that the respondent/land lady require the schedule premises for her personal requirement. Both the Courts concurrently held that the respondent/land lady require the said premises bonafidely for starting a clinic as she is a Doctor and the said findings of fact cannot be interfered by exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act. He also contends that in revisional jurisdiction, there cannot be re-appreciation of evidence. The revision petitioner filed separate I.As., for re-calling and adducing additional evidence, but the same were dismissed by separate orders, but no separate revisions are filed as such, the revision petitioner cannot canvas the legality of the orders passed in those I.As., in the present revisions. He also contends that the appellate Court on appreciation of evidence, allowed Cross Objections filed by the respondent land lady in respect of wilful default committed by tenant, as the Rent Controller has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the respondent/land lady. The appellate Court on appreciation of evidence held that the revision petitioner/tenant committed wilful default in payment of taxes. As such, the revision petitioner is liable for eviction on this ground also. The appellate Court on appreciation of evidence held that the revision petitioner/tenant committed wilful default in payment of taxes. As such, the revision petitioner is liable for eviction on this ground also. The findings of the appellate Court are based on the evidence, as such, the same cannot be interfered by re-appreciating the evidence by exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act. He contends that both the revisions are liable to be dismissed as the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Action is very limited. He relied on the Judgments reported in Deep Chandra Juneja Vs. Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria (dead) through L.Rs (AIR 2008 Supreme Court 3095), Rishi Kumar Govil Vs. Maqsoodan and others (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 465), Jabir Hussain Vs. Asgar Hussain and another (1985 (2) APLJ 573) Jahabdurnnisa Begum and another Vs. S.Balarksihna ( 2002 (1) ALD 696 ) and P.Rajaiah Vs. Veera Shaiva Vidyavardhak Sangh ( 1998 (4) ALT 275 .). 8. The eviction petition is filed by the respondent/land lady on two grounds; one is bonafide requirement of the petition schedule premises for her self occupation and also on the ground of wilful default of payment of municipal taxes by the revision petitioner/tenant. As far as the ground of bonafide requirement of the petition schedule premises for self occupation of the respondent land lady is concerned, the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority on considering the evidence on record, held in favour of the respondent/land lady. The evidence of Pw.1 i.e., respondent/land lady is that she is having five children out of whom, two are studying in Wings High School and other children at Bahrain and she intend to shift to Hyderabad for education of her children and also settle down at Hyderabad by opening Eye Clinic. Her evidence further reveals that she is having necessary qualifications for opening Eye Clinic and also having sufficient experience. Exs.P7 to P10 shows the experience of the respondent as Ophthalmologist and the certificates pertains to her children studying at Hyderabad. The revision petitioner did not cross examine her about the above documents and the respondent/tenant did not deny the facts under Exs.P7 to P10. Exs.P7 to P10 shows the experience of the respondent as Ophthalmologist and the certificates pertains to her children studying at Hyderabad. The revision petitioner did not cross examine her about the above documents and the respondent/tenant did not deny the facts under Exs.P7 to P10. The evidence of Pw.1 respondent/land lady is that she being the Ophthalmologist requires the schedule premises bonafidely for running an Eye Clinic and consultation was not challenged and her evidence was not disproved by producing any other evidence and the aspect of gift in her favour by her mother is also proved by the respondent/land lady. The case of the respondent that gift deed was executed by the mother of the respondent/land lady in her favour to evict the revision petitioner/tenant was also disbelieved by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority. Rw.1 also himself admitted that except the petition schedule premises, land lady has no other property in twin cities. Rw.1 failed to produce any document to show that respondent/land lady was having other property. The appellate Court also gave valid and cogent reasons in dismissing the I.As., filed for adducing additional evidence. The appellate Court also believed the evidence of Pw.1 and the documents on which she relied and came to the same conclusion as that of the Rent Controller, holding that the respondent/land lady requires the petition schedule premises bonafidely for establishing Eye Clinic as she is an Ophthalmologist. Except contending that the respondent/landlady is an NRI., and she never started clinic during her entire career as such she does not require the premises bonafidely, nothing is brought on record saying that the respondent/land lady does not require the premises bonafidely for starting Eye Clinic. The findings recorded on bonafide requirement of the premises for the respondent/land lady is based on evidence and it is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below. As such, I am of the opinion that the same cannot be interfered by exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act. 9. The findings recorded on bonafide requirement of the premises for the respondent/land lady is based on evidence and it is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below. As such, I am of the opinion that the same cannot be interfered by exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act. 9. Regarding the wilful default by the tenant in payment of property tax from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2002 at the rate of Rs.1,750/- and Rs.1,850/- is concerned, it is to be seen that originally, the revision petitioner/tenant obtained the mulgi from the mother of the respondent land lady by executing a registered rental deed dated 2-4-1978 on monthly rent of Rs.250/- and time to time it was enhanced and the present rent is Rs.450/-per month payable each month on or before 5th of succeeding month. Apart from that the tenant has also agreed to pay the property tax and the enhanced municipal taxes in respect of the petition schedule premises. The tenant has also not disputed regarding the quantum of rent and payment of municipal taxes as per the rental deed executed by him, but he puts up a plea that the property stands in the name of Smt. Anwarunnisa and there was no mutation effected either in the name of Ashraf Sultana nor the land lady and the Municipal authorities introduced the new self assessment scheme. Neither Ashraf Sultana nor Anwarunnisa submitted the returns of self assessment and intimated the same to the tenant. Accordingly, the municipal authorities have not demanded to pay the arrears of the property tax. It was in the month of March, 2003, the MCH Authorities asked the tenant to pay the amount by submitting self assessment form and accordingly, the property tax amount was paid. The evidence of Pw.1 shows that as per Ex.P2 leased deed, the municipal tax and also the enhanced tax has to be paid by the tenant. Hence, the tenant has committed default in payment of property tax from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2002. The tenant was depositing the rent into the bank account of Pw.1 furnished by her and the rent is paid up to date, but the tenant paid property tax subsequently after filing the eviction petition and when she enquired with the MCH authorities she came to know about the demand notice issued to the tenant to pay the property tax. 10. 10. It is the case of Rw.1/tenant that he used to pay the property tax whenever the tax collector came for collection of tax and he never committed default in payment of tax and he paid the tax for the period from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2002 after filing the case. First time, the MCH authorities demanded the tax in the month of March, 2001 for the period of April 2001 to March, 2002 and he paid the same immediately. Rw.1 further admitted that the Municipal Corporation issued a notification in all News Papers to file the self assessment returns. As per the said notification issued by the MCH., either land lady or tenant can file the self assessment returns. He pleaded ignorance in respect of payment of property tax after notification and he did file any self assessment returns before the MCH. Rw.1 further admits that the payment made for Rs.7,525/- under Ex.P11 includes the property tax for the financial year 2001-2002 and the property tax was enhanced from the year 2002-2003 at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per annum and the old rate of tax was continued till the year 2001-2002 and the annual property tax from 2002 is Rs.5,040/-. 11. The record shows that the tenant has paid the property tax under Ex.P11 on 13-03-2003 i.e., after filing of the eviction petition. Even as per the notification issued by the Municipal authorities for self assessment scheme, either the tenant or the land lady can file the self assessment returns. Ex.P2 rental deed shows that the lessee is responsible to pay the existing municipal taxes and the enhanced municipal taxes. Thus, the above aspects show that it is the duty of the tenant to pay the property tax to the municipal authorities as per the terms and conditions of Ex.P2. It is also seen that the tenant has not issued any notice to the mother of the land lady or land lady requesting her to file the self assessment returns. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the revision petitioner has not committed default in payment of tax as agreed in Ex.P2. The tenant has not even paid the taxes at the existing rates to show his bonafides, but simply abstained from paying the municipal taxes under the guise of introduction of self assessment scheme. The tenant has not even paid the taxes at the existing rates to show his bonafides, but simply abstained from paying the municipal taxes under the guise of introduction of self assessment scheme. Even as per the self assessment scheme, the tenant can file the declaration because, he is a longstanding tenant and he is aware of the fact that the land lady is residing abroad. These aspects prove that the tenant wilfully defaulted in payment of tax as agreed in Ex.P2. The Rent Controller has not properly considered the issue regarding the wilful default in payment of tax by the revision petitioner/tenant and as such, the appellant Court has appreciated the above aspects and reversed the finding of the Rent Controller regarding wilful default of payment of tax by the tenant. Since the appellate Court has appreciated entire evidence and came to a right conclusion and the said finding of fact cannot be reversed in revisional jurisdiction. 12. In Dines Kumar Vs Yusuf Ali (4th cited supra) the Apex Court held:- “25. The landlord is the best Judge of his need, however, it should be real, genuine and the need may not be a pretext to evict the tenant only for increasing the rent.” This case has no application to the facts of the present case, since the finding regarding the bonafide requirement of the landlord are not perverse and the same are based on evidence. While coming to the conclusion, neither the Rent Controller nor the appellate Court based on any irrelevant material. The Courts below also found that the requirement of the land lady is genuine one. As such, the Judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 13. In Omer Bin Salam Askari Vs. Dr. Yousuf (5th cited supra), the Court held :- “21. The meaning in which the term 'bona fide' is used in this provision could be effectively applied only if the landlord is likely to be exposed to any hardship if he is prevented from commencing a new business from the demised premises. If there is no hardship, the requirement certainly is not bona fide. Even if any hardship is going to be caused, greater hardship is likely to be caused to the tenant because he has no other means of livelihood. If there is no hardship, the requirement certainly is not bona fide. Even if any hardship is going to be caused, greater hardship is likely to be caused to the tenant because he has no other means of livelihood. The landlord who is a Doctor by profession is not shown to be a person of any scanty means. In that view of the matter, therefore, there can be no constraint on recording a finding that the landlord cannot be held to be bona fide proposing to commence new business from the demised premises and, therefore, on that ground also the landlord fails in establishing his case to secure the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises.” The appellate Court while deciding point No.3 whether the tenant will be put to hardship which will outweigh the hardship of the land lady and discussed the issue at length and answered the same in favour of the land lady. Comparative hardship is a ground when the petition is filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, but not under Section 10(3)(a) (iii)(b). Even otherwise, the appellate Court considered the same in point No.3, as such above decision has no application to the facts of the case. 14. In Kranti Swaroop Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., and another, Appellants Vs. Smt. Kanta Bai Asawa and others, Respondents (cited first supra), the Apex Court held:- “8. If rent includes municipal taxes as agreed to between the parties, the High Court ought to have examined the object of the tenants depositing a huge sum of Rs. 10,000 with the landladies. The deposit was to be adjusted towards the rent also, in addition to the electricity charges or damages. Under Section 7(2)(a) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (lease, rent & eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the landlady is forbidden to receive any premium or other like sums in excess of the agreed rent. Even if the tenants fails to ask the landladies to make adjustment of a advanced amount, eviction on the ground of wilful default cannot be ordered. Bhoja alias Bhoja Ram Gupta v. Rameshwar Agarwala and Ors. [1993] 2 S.C.C. 443 did not go into the question of wilful default. Again in Mohd. Even if the tenants fails to ask the landladies to make adjustment of a advanced amount, eviction on the ground of wilful default cannot be ordered. Bhoja alias Bhoja Ram Gupta v. Rameshwar Agarwala and Ors. [1993] 2 S.C.C. 443 did not go into the question of wilful default. Again in Mohd. Salimuddin v. Misri Lal, it was observed that the tenant could not evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent for two months, even if the tenant fails to ask the landlord to make adjustment of advanced amount. In view of all these, merely because a small sum by way of municipal taxes has not been paid, it does not mean that tenant is liable to be evicted. The judgment of the High Court requires to be reversed.” In that case, there was a deposit by the tenant with the landlord and in those circumstances, the Apex Court held that merely because small sum by way of municipal taxes has not been paid, it does not mean that tenant is liable to be evicted. The facts in the present case and the facts before the Apex Court are different and as such, the same are not applicable to the present case. The judgment in the case of Hotel Kingsand others Vs. Sara Farhan Lukmani and others (second cited supra) has also no application to the facts of the present case. 15 In J.Jermons Vs. Aliammal and others (third cited supra), the Apex Court held:- “17. Here 'wilful default' implies intentional or conscious violation of obligation to pay the rent due; it may also be on account of supine indifference or callous or recalcitrant conduct. But if the default has occasioned on account of ignorance, accident or compulsion or circumstances beyond the control of the tenant, it cannot be termed as 'wilful default'. This has to be determined as a question of fact on the facts and in the circumstances of each case.” In the present case, the appellate Court after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that it is a willful default, as the tenant knowingly fully well that he has to pay the municipal taxes and also the enhanced taxes as per Ex.P2 and also even under the self assessment scheme notification, the tenant can file the declaration, but he failed to do so. The revision petitioner not even paid the earlier taxes, by which he committed willful default. On the other hand, he blamed the land lady for not filing the self assessment returns. He has also taken a plea that there was no mutation in favour of the land lady, but admittedly he was paying rents to the land lady. By taking all these facts into account, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the default committed by the tenant in payment of the municipal taxes is willful default. It was not occasioned in the present case on account of ignorance, accident or compulsion or circumstances beyond control of the tenant. As such, the above said Judgment cannot come to the rescue of the revision petitioner. 16. In Jahabdurnnisa Begum and another Vs. S.Balarksihna (9th cited supra), the Court held:- “39. But if the tenant agrees to pay the entire property tax as demanded by the Municipality and if he commits default in payment of property tax, as agreed, it would amount to wilful default in payment of rent.” 17. In P.Rajaiah Vs. Veera Shaiva Vidyavardhak Sangh (10th cited supra), the Court held:- “5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however, tries to contend that the rental agreement marked as Ex.P4 does not mention that the property tax is to be paid by the tenant to the landlord and that such tax is to be paid only by the tenant to the Municipal authority and that therefore even if there was any default committed in payment of property tax to the Municipality by the tenant it will not amount to default in payment of tax inasmuch as such tax was not liable to be paid to the landlord by the tenant. But it makes no difference whether the tax is to be paid directly to the Municipal authorities by the tenant as per the rental agreement or to the landlord. When once Ex.P4 rental agreement clearly mentions that the property tax due to the demised building is to be paid by the tenant over and above the rent that was specified in the agreement and when once a default is committed by the tenant in payment of such tax even directly to the Municipality, it will amount to violation of ternis of the agreement and wilful default in payment of such property tax. Under these circumstances, the lower appellate authority has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Kanta Bai Asawa v. Kranti Swaroop Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd, wherein it was observed that where the recitals in the lease-deed would indicate that the landlord on service of the demand notice in respect of tax is bound to intimate the tenant and on such intimation the tenant has to pay the tax and where the tenant has agreed to pay the Municipal taxes as per the rental agreement, non-payment of tax would amount to non-payment of rent and thus it will form a ground for eviction. The lower appellate authority has also relied upon another decision of this Court reported in S. Fatheuddin Akbar v. Ghanshamdas, 1957 ALT 648 wherein also it is observed that "rent" includes what is ordinarily described as rent but also payments in respect of special amenities provided by the landlord under the agreement between him and his tenant and that it is comprehensive enough to include all payments agreed to be paid by the tenant to his landlord and that non-payment of the taxes would amount to non-payment of rent and would attract Section 10 of the Rent Control Act.” 18. In Rishi Kumar Govil Vs. Maqsoodan and others (7th cited supra), the Apex Court held:- “Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion concurring with that of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority that the need of the landlady is bona fide and genuine. Considering the factual findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority and analysed by the High Court, there is no scope for any interference in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.” 19. In Jabir Hussain Vs. Asgar Hussain and another (8th cited supra), the Court held:-“Further there is also another ground for eviction, namely, the bonafide requirement. The first respondent is a Chartered Accountant. It is true that he is in service in Saudi Arabia at present and it also receiving a handsome remuneration. But however, he stated that he wants to return to India and set up practice in Income tax as he is a chartered accountant. It is also in evidence that he has no other premises for his practice. The learned counsel for the tenant is not able to show any convincing circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of the first respondent. But however, he stated that he wants to return to India and set up practice in Income tax as he is a chartered accountant. It is also in evidence that he has no other premises for his practice. The learned counsel for the tenant is not able to show any convincing circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of the first respondent. Further in view of the concurrent findings arrived at by the court below I am not inclined to interfere in the revision petition.” The appellate Court considered the evidence on record and also relied upon several Judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court and came to a right conclusions and I do not wish to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller and appellate Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act. In view of the same, I confirm the order passed by the appellate authority and both the revisions are liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, the tenant is granted four (4) months time for vacating the subject premises on the condition that he shall pay arrears of rent and shall continue to pay the existing rent till the date of vacation of the schedule premises with an undertaking that he shall not induct any third parties and also undertake to hand over peaceful and vacant possession to respondent/Land Lord in the mean time. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.