T. Venkatadri, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the proceedings before the House Rent Controller (District Munsif, Mannargudi). The petitioner is the landlord. He filed a petition for the eviction under Section 7(3)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The suit property originally belonged to one Santhana Ramayyar and his brothers. The respondent was their tenant from 9th June, 1956. The allegation in the petition was that the house was given originally for residential purpose, and that subsequently the respondent is using the front portion for his printing press and residing in the rear portion of the building the tenant was put on notice by the original owner, Santhana Ramayyar, that he is liable to be evicted, as he is using the building for a different purpose. Subsequently Santhana Ramayyar sold the property to the petitioner herein on 20th May, 1958 and the tenant attorned to the petitioner, subsequently there was a. partition between the petitioner's father and his brother on 1st January, 1959. Next day, the petitioner and his father effected a partition in and by which the property purchased by the petitioner was allotted to him. Now the petitioner filed the petition for eviction on the ground that he required the building for his residential purpose and also for his business which he is carrying on at Nidamangalam and Coimbatore.6 of 1961.
2. The respondent contended that this application is not a bona fide one. The petitioner's father himself made a complaint to the local District authorities that the petitioner was committing nuisance by installing the printing press in the building. After purchasing the building in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner's father effected partition allotting the building to the petitioner in order to apply for eviction of the respondent. The petitioner is a bachelor and residing with his father. The petition is not maintainable.
3. The District Munsif gave a finding that the respondent took the building both for residential and non-residential purposes. He held that the respondent is not entitled to possession of the suit building under Section 7(3)(a)(ii), but is entitled to possession of it under Section 7(3)(a)(i) of the Act for his residential purpose and the application is a bona fide one. But on appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge, he gave a finding that the application is not a bona fide one, that the dominant purpose of letting the house was to run a printing press which was the principal user to which the building was put, and that the petitioner did not require the building either for residential or non-residential purposes. On revision to the learn-ed District Judge, he confirmed the order of the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the petitioner did not require the building for non-residential purpose. It is against this order the petitioner landlord has filed this Revision Petition.
4. The only ground that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the application is a bona fide one and whether the petitioner requires the building for his own use and necessity.
5. When we consider the question whether the landlord requires the building bona fide for his own use, we have to bear in mind whether the premises may be required reasonably and bona fide. It is the duty of the Court to see whether the premises are required both reasonably and bona fide. Bona fides may be proved in an ordinary way like any other fact. There is no such rule of law that bona fides being the subject-matter, can only be proved by the petitioner stepping into the witness-box. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further the word implies that it is more under the force of his personal circumstances than under the impulse of a desire that the landlord needs the premises; but desire is not ruled out. Requirement has a subjective element in it, whereas the term ''reasonable' possesses an objective element.
6. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is that the petitioner's father previously attempted to evict the respondent herein, but failed. Then he went through a family partition and subsequently in a partition between himself and the petitioner this property was allotted to the petitioner. The son is residing with his father. He has not yet set up an independent family. It is not proved that he is carrying on business of his own. The building is predominantly non-residential one. The application is not a bona fled one. The conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge is that he does not require the building both for residential and non-residential purposes. This finding was practically confirmed by the learned District Judge. In revision I cannot interfere with the findings of fact.
7. Mr. Gopalaswami Iyengar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that both the learned Subordinate Judge and District Judge took the fact into consideration, namely that the petitioner is a bachelor and resides with his father and that he does not require the building for his residential purpose is an irrelevant fact. It is true that simply because the petitioner is a bachelor and is residing with his father he cannot ask the building for his own residential or non-residential purpose. But the Court has to take into consideration whether the application is a bonafide one, whether he requires the building reasonably for his own use and whether he has satisfied the Court that it is more under the force of his personal circumstances than under the impulse that he needs the premises. None of the elements are present in the petition.
8. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.