P.N.Bhagwati, J.

(1) THE only ground on which the claim of the appellant for possession of the premises from the respondents has been negatived is that the purpose for which the appellant has sought to recover possession of the premises is for carrying on the profession of advocate and that does not constitute business within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. This ground obviously cannot be upheld in view of the decision of this case in Mohanlal v. R. Kondiah where this court has held that business is a word of very large and wide import and the practice of law is business within the meaning of that expression in Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. It is clear that having regard to this decision the practice of law must be regarded as business also for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 and the appellant must be held entitled to recover possession of the premises from the respondents for the purpose of carrying on the profession of law.

(2) WE accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High court and