ORDER

The suit premises are situated in Chennai and are admittedly governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The landlord - respondents initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant - appellant on the grounds available under sections 10(2)(ii)(a) and (b), and 10 (3) (c) of the Act alleging that the tenant had sub-let the tenancy premises although the lease did not confer on the tenant any right to do so, that the tenant had used the building for the purpose other than that for which it was leased and that the landlords, occupying only a part of the building, required additional accommodation for their activities. The rent controller and the appellate authority negatived all the three grounds and therefore, directed the eviction petition to be dismissed. The landlords preferred a revision under section 25 of the Act to the High Court which has been allowed and holding the availability of grounds of eviction on all the three counts, the High Court has directed the tenant to be evicted.

2. It appears that the building, at one time, was owned by professor T.M.P. Mahadevan. He created a tr