Revisional interference, bona fide residential need, and unauthorised change of user: tenant's objections fail on the stated facts.

Concurrent findings based on assumptions, non-existent facts, or ignored material evidence may be disregarded in revision where they lack factual foundation. The analysis further states that a tenant cannot resist eviction by relying on an inconsistent plea that the premises were let for non-residential or composite use, especially where the record shows a residential building and the statutory bar on converting residential premises into non-residential use without written consent remains relevant. It also notes that a plea based on an earlier eviction proceeding does not succeed when the proceedings were initiated concurrently. On the stated facts, the landlord's bona fide requirement for residential occupation was upheld and the tenant's objections failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revisional court could interfere with the concurrent findings rejecting the landlord's bona fide requirement and accepting the tenant's defence on user of the premises; (ii) whether the tenant could resist eviction by characterising the premises as non-residential or composite and by invoking the statutory provisions governing eviction for personal occupation.

Issue (i): whether the revisional court could interfere with the concurrent findings rejecting the landlord's bona fide requirement and accepting the tenant's defence on user of the premises

Analysis: The concurrent findings were based on assumptions and non-existent facts, including an erroneous view of the size and nature of the landlord's existing accommodation and a mistaken understanding that the landlord was seeking only one room for herself rather than the entire ground floor for her family. The evidence showed that the landlord had simultaneously sought possession of the remaining portion from the other tenant as well. The findings therefore lacked factual foundation and were not binding on the revisional court. The tenant's shifting stand on the purpose of the tenancy, together with the prohibition in Section 11 of the Act against converting a residential building into a non-residential one without written consent, also undermined the defence on user.

Conclusion: The revisional court was justified in ignoring the concurrent findings and in upholding the landlord's bona fide requirement.

Issue (ii): whether the tenant could resist eviction by characterising the premises as non-residential or composite and by invoking the statutory provisions governing eviction for personal occupation

Analysis: The plea that the hall had been let for running a clinic, or that a composite letting would take the case outside the landlord's remedy, was not a pure question of law and depended on disputed facts. The tenant had not consistently pleaded that case, and the statutory bar against conversion of a residential building into a non-residential one without written consent remained material. The amended definition of non-residential building was not available to the tenant on the facts found, and the earlier eviction of the other tenant strengthened the landlord's need for the remaining portion of the house. The proviso barring a second application after an earlier successful eviction did not apply because the two proceedings were initiated concurrently.

Conclusion: The tenant could not defeat the eviction claim on the basis of alleged non-residential or composite user, and the landlord remained entitled to eviction for residential occupation.

Final Conclusion: The landlord's claim for possession was upheld, the tenant's objections failed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings based on conjectures, factual errors, or ignored material evidence do not bind the revisional court, and a tenant cannot rely on an unauthorised change of user or an inconsistent plea to defeat a landlord's bona fide requirement for residential occupation.

---