ORDER : The judgment and decree, dated 14.8.2013 and made in the Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A. No. 52 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Madurai, confirming the fair and decretal order, dated 17.10.2011 and made in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thirumangalam are under challenge in this memorandum of civil revision. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the tenant in respect of the petition mentioned premises, whereas the respondents 1 to 3 are the landlords. 3. For easy reference and also for the sake of convenience, the respondents 1 to 3 may hereinafter be referred to as the landlords whereas the revision petitioner be referred to as the tenant wherever the context so require. 4. As it appear from the records the landlords had filed the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2009 as against the tenant under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) seeking an order of eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, owners occupation and act of waste. 5. That petition was resisted by the tenant by filing his counter statement. 6. On evaluating the evidences both oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller had proceeded to allow the petition only on the ground of own use and occupation. The petition in respect of other two grounds, viz., wilful default and act of waste was dismissed. 7. Virtually, the landlords had not preferred any appeal against the dismissal of the petition on the ground of wilful default and act of waste. But the tenant having been aggrieved by the order of eviction on the ground of own use and occupation had preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 52 of 2012 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, viz., Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 8. After hearing both sides, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal on 14.8.2013 after confirming the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller. 9. Challenging the correctness of the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant has preferred the present civil revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 10. 9. Challenging the correctness of the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant has preferred the present civil revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 10. Along with the revision, the tenant has also filed a miscellaneous application in M.P.3 of 2013 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce and mark some photographs and a compact disc (C.D.) as additional documentary evidences on his side. 11. Heard Mr. S. Pon Senthil Kumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Nagendiran, learned counsel appearing for the landlords. 12. The facts which are essential for the disposal of this revision are as under:- 13. The case of the landlords is that the tenant came to be in occupation of the petition mentioned premises as a tenant on agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.750/- p.m. as rent besides paying the electricity charges separately. At the time of induction, he had given an undertaking that he would vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the building whenever required by the landlord. 14. The landlords require the building for their own use and occupation both for residence as well as non-residential purpose. 15. When the landlords approached the tenant in the month of October 2006 to get the delivery of the portion occupied by him, he had abruptly refused to vacate the premises. 16. The tenant had also committed default in payment of monthly rent from August 2006. The demand made by the landlords for the payment of arrears of rent also ended in futile. Therefore, the landlords had issued a notice, dated 30.11.2006 through their lawyer demanding the tenant to vacate the premises, however he had given a reply with false allegations and finally the landlord had issued a notice on 1.2.2007 demanding vacant possession of the premises. This time also the tenant had issued a reply with false allegations. Hence, the landlords were constrained to file the Rent Control Original Petition for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of own use and occupation, wilful default and act of waste. 17. This time also the tenant had issued a reply with false allegations. Hence, the landlords were constrained to file the Rent Control Original Petition for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of own use and occupation, wilful default and act of waste. 17. The tenant while denying all the allegations had admitted that the petition mentioned premises is a non residential building and the said premises was taken on rent by his father and he had been in possession of the said premises in the capacity of tenant for more than 30 years. After his demise, the tenant being the son had been carrying on business in the petition premises and thereafter he had entered into an agreement with the first petitioner's husband (landlady's husband), who is the father of the landlords 2 and 3 one Varadharajan and thereby, the tenant had agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.750/- p.m. He had paid a sum of Rs.25000/- towards advance. 18. This has not been denied by the landlords. The rental agreement, dated 10.1.2003 (unregistered rental agreement) was entered into between the tenant and the first petitioner's husband Varadharajan. 19. Under these circumstances, a crucial point arises for the consideration of this Court is, as to whether the requirement of the landlords is bona fide? 20. The appropriate provision for eviction on the ground of own use and occupation is Section 10(3)(a) of the Act, which contemplates that a landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d) apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. 21. Sub Clause (iii) of Section 10(3)(a) envisages that, "In case it is any other non residential building, if the landlord or (any member of his family) is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or (any member of his family) is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own. 21. Sub Clause (iii) of Section 10(3)(a) envisages that, "In case it is any other non residential building, if the landlord or (any member of his family) is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or (any member of his family) is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own. Provided that person who becomes a landlord after the commencement of the tenancy by an instrument inter vivos shall not be entitled to apply under this clause before the expiry of three months from the date on which the instrument was registered: Provided further that where a landlord has obtained possession of a building under this clause, he shall not be entitled to apply again under this clause- (i) in case he has obtained possession of a residential building, for possession of another residential building of his own; (ii) in case he has obtained possession of a non-residential building, for possession of another non-residential building of his own." 22. The object of enactment of Section 10(3)(a) is that a landlord can ask for eviction of a residential building for residential purpose and a non-residential building for non-residential purpose. One of the grounds of eviction, which contained in almost all the Rent Control Acts in the country is the question of landlords bona fide personal necessity. 23. The concept of bona fide necessity should be meaningfully constituted so as to make the relief granted to the landlord real and practical. This proposition has been laid down by the Apex Court in Kewal Singh vs. Lajwanti ( 1980 (1) SCC 290 at 298). 24. As per the decision in Rangaswami Reddiar vs. Jayaraj (1978 TNLJ 9), Section 10(3)(a) compartmentalises the nature of the buildings and the persons can obtain possession of a residential building for his own occupation only for a residential purpose, and similarly a person can obtain vacant possession of non residential building only for the purposes of carrying on his own business. In other words, Section 10(3)(a) compartmentalises the requirements of the landlord with reference to the nature of the building. 25. In other words, Section 10(3)(a) compartmentalises the requirements of the landlord with reference to the nature of the building. 25. On coming to the instant case on hand, in so far as the ground of own use and personal occupation is concerned, the landlords have stated in their petition that, "they require the building for their own use and occupation both for residence and business and also for additional accommodation." 26. Admittedly, the petition mentioned premises is a non-residential one, which measures only 105 sq.ft. As it appear from paragraph No.5 of the counter statement of the tenant, his mother had been running a footwear shop in the petition mentioned premises under the name and style of 'Rajay Stores' for more than 33 years. Since, she was getting older, the tenant herein had been running the same business in the said premises. Now the tenant has been running the same business under the name and style of, 'Roshan Shoe Mart', after changing the name of the shop, viz., 'Rajay Stores'. 27. It is also the contention of the tenant that the requirement of the landlords for their own use and occupation to start a business for the third petitioner is not a bona fide one. 28. He has contended that on the eastern side of the petition mentioned premises, the landlords have been running an STD Booth. Thereafter, the third petitioner had got a job in a private concern and after closing the business, he had joined in the private concern. 29. It is also the contention of the tenant that on the western side of the petition mentioned premises, the first petitioner (landlord) is having her own property and it was given on lease to the Khadi Craft and the said premises is three times bigger than the petition mentioned premises and that the landlords can very well carry on their business in the said portion, which is rented out to Khadi craft. 30. Apart from this, the landlords are having six houses and all the houses are leased out to various persons and the petition mentioned premises is only a small portion measuring 105 sq.ft. and it may not be sufficient to run any kind of business. 31. The tenant has also contended that the income derived from the shop was very meagre. Apart from this, the landlords are having six houses and all the houses are leased out to various persons and the petition mentioned premises is only a small portion measuring 105 sq.ft. and it may not be sufficient to run any kind of business. 31. The tenant has also contended that the income derived from the shop was very meagre. Excepting his business, which is being run in the petition mentioned premises, no other source is available to run his family and hence, he has requested the Court to dismiss the petition. But the learned Rent Controller has not accepted the contention of the tenant and ultimately his contentions were rejected. 32. While rejecting the contention of the tenant, the learned Rent Controller has observed that for the welfare of the third petitioner's family and for their betterment, the first petitioner had requested the respondent to vacate the premises for starting a stationary business. 33. The learned Rent Controller has also observed that to start such a business no huge amount was necessary and further from the evidence of both the petitioners and the respondent, it was evident that the petitioner was having sufficient means to start the business in the said premises and therefore, the learned Rent Controller has concluded that the requirement of the landlords was a bona fide one. 34. The learned Rent Controller has also made a reference to the following decisions in support of his conclusion. a. Nathella Sampathu Chetty vs. Sha Vajingjee Bapulal ( 1967 (1) MLJ 289 ). b. M/s.Akthars, represented by its Proprietor, R. Syed Tajuddin vs. Hitesh V. Shah ( 2000 (1) MLJ 413 ). c. T.K.V.S.L. Mahadevan vs. Lathif Moosa ( 2009 (5) L.W. 264 ). 35. In all the above cases, it has been commonly held that it will not be open to the tenant to dictate as to the requirement of the landlord. It is neither for the authorities concerned nor the tenant to dictate as to where the landlord shall carry on his business. 36. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has also endorsed the view taken by the learned Rent Controller and therefore, the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller has been confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. 37. 36. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has also endorsed the view taken by the learned Rent Controller and therefore, the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller has been confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. 37. It is settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising revisional powers shall not interfere unnecessarily with the concurrent findings given by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. 38. In this case also, both the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority have given concurrent findings, which, according to this Court, do not warrant any interference as their findings are within the ambit of Section 10(3)(a) of the Act. 39. In so far as the miscellaneous petition in M.P. No. 3 of 2013 is concerned, Mr. Pon Senthil Kumaran, learned counsel appearing for the tenant (revision petitioner) has contended that in so far as the revision petition as against the judgment of the learned Rent Controller Appellate Authority under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act was concerned, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. would definitely be applicable and therefore, this Court being the revisional Court was having every power to take into account all the subsequent events and therefore, there might not be any impediment to receive the additional documents, which were sought to be produced and marked on behalf of the tenant. 40. In support of his contention, he has made reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor and General Traders ( AIR 1975 SC 1409 ). 41. In this case, while speaking on behalf of a three Judges Bench, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has observed that, "First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis-a-vis circumstances which come into being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the Tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is violated, with a view to promote substantial justice......" 42. In this regard, Mr. Pon Senthil Kumaran has submitted that where no specific provision or fairplay is violated, the fact arising after the lis could be taken into consideration by the courts to promote substantial justice. 43. On the other hand, Mr. V. Nagendran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. would not be applicable to the rent control proceedings. 44. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the following two decisions:- a. Sundaram Steel Co. Represented by Managing Partner P. Radhakrishnan and others vs. S. Lakshmi (1996 (1) MLJ 376). b. R. Sambandan alias Babu vs. S.Krishnaveni (2001 (2) CTC 321). 45. In the decision, first cited supra, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that while the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules provides for the reception of additional evidence at the time of the first appeal before the appellate authority, there is no provision under the main enactment or under the Rules for reception of any such additional evidence at the time of revision before this Court under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 46. In an another decision, cited second supra, another learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that the High Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction cannot receive additional evidence and therefore, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. are not made applicable to the rent control proceedings. 47. 46. In an another decision, cited second supra, another learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that the High Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction cannot receive additional evidence and therefore, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. are not made applicable to the rent control proceedings. 47. Sub rule 2 to Rule 16 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1974 provides that, “if the appellate authority decided to make further inquiry he may take additional evidence or require such evidence to be taken by the Controller”. 48. As observed by Abdul Hadi, J., former Judge of this Court, in the decision cited first supra, regarding reception of any such additional evidence, Rule 16 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 only provides for the appellate authority taking such additional evidence, when the appeal before it is pending under Section 23 of the Act. While thus the said Rules provide for reception of additional evidence only at the time of the first appeal before the appellate authority, there is no provision either under the main enactment or under the Rules, for reception of any such additional evidence at the time of revision before this Court under Section 25 of the Act. If really such additional evidence could be entertained in any such revision, it would have been specifically provided for, particularly when the above said Rules specifically provides for such entertainment of additional evidence before the appellate authority. It is clear that the law has not provided for any such entertainment of additional evidence at the time of revision under Section 25 of the Act. 49. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by both the learned counsels. This Court has also gone through the decisions afore cited by both sides. 50. In the decision of the Apex Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor & General Traders ( AIR 1975 SC 1409 ), it has been held that, “where, during the pendency of a proceeding under Rent Control legislation by the landlord for permission to evict the tenants, a subsequent event in the facts of the case takes place which has a material bearing on the landlord's right to evict, the approach of the High Court in revision, in taking cognizance of the new development cannot be said to be wrong or illegal”. 51. 51. It is to be noted that the said decision has not specifically dealt with about the application of the provisions under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce additional documentary evidences. Therefore, this Court finds that the decision of the Supreme Court, as afore stated, is not directly made applicable to the instant case on hand. 52. Having regard to the related facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate authority on the ground of own use and occupation do not require the interference of this Court. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. The Judgment and Decree of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller are confirmed. M.P.No.3 of 2013 is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.