Judgement

NATARAJAN, J. :- This appeal by special leave is by a tenant against whom an order of eviction passed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", by the Rent Controller was restored by the High Court of Madras after setting aside the dismissal of the eviction petition by the Appellate Authority.

2. The facts are not in controversy and may briefly be set out as under. A one-storeyed building in Wall Tax Road, Madras was originally owned by one Unnamalai Ammal. She was using the first floor for her residence and had leased out the ground floor to the appellant herein to be used as a godown for storing his business ware. It is common ground the appellants shop is situate in an adjoining building. The lease was for a period of 10 years with an option for renewal for a futher period of 5 years. Unnamalai Ammal however refused to renew the lease and filed a suit against the appellant for eviction on the ground she bona fide required the ground floor also for her residential use. The suit did not meet with success. Unnamalai Ammal bequeathed the property to her son-in-law and grandson who are the respondents herein. As legatees of the premises the respondents filed a petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act praying for eviction of the appellant on the ground they bona fide required additional accommodation for their residential needs. The Rent Controller upheld their claim, after finding the relevant factors of bona fide need and comparative hardship in their favour and ordered eviction. On appeal by the appellant, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and further held that the respondents were not entitled to recover possession of non-residential premises for their residential requirements and dismissed the petition for eviction. On further revision to the High Court by the respondents Ramaprasada Rao, C. J. set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The aggrieved tenant has preferred this appeal.

3. The judgment under appeal is assailed by the appellant on four grounds, viz. (1) Since the ground floor constitutes a building by itself within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, the respondents can seek eviction of the appellant only under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and not under Section 10(3)(c);

(2) Even if the respondents are entitled to invoke Section 10(3)(c) they can seek eviction only if they require the ground floor for non-residential purposes and not for residential purposes;

(3) In any event the factors of relative hardship between the parties weigh more in favour of the appellant than the respondents; and -(4) The High Court was in error in interfering with the findings of fact rendered by the Appellate Authority while exercising its revisional powers under Section 25 of the Act.

4. Before proceeding to examine the merits of the contentions, it will be relevant to state a few facts. The ground floor, though used as a godown, is of a residential pattern and consists of two rooms and a hall besides a kitchen and toilet rooms. The first floor is being used as their residence by the respondents, the other members of the family being the wife and daughter of the second respondent. The first floor consists of only two rooms and it is the case of the respondents that the accommodation in the first floor has become inadequate for their growing residential needs. It is also their case that the first respondent who is over 65 years of age finds it difficult to climb the stairs on account of his old age and frail health. Their further plea is that the water supply to the first floor is inadequate in spite of the electric motor and pump set installed in the ground floor to pump up water. In contrast the appellant is said to have a spacious three-shoreyed building in Door No. 39 adjoining the leased premises and also to have another godown clo