Radhakrishnan, J.

Tenants are the revision petitioners. Eviction was sought for by the respondent – landlord under section 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965. Tenanted premises form part of a two storeyed building. Landlord is occupying northernmost room on the ground floor. Tenant in C.R.P.No.1700 of 2002 is occupying southernmost room in the ground floor. Tenant in C.R.P.No.1745 of 2002 is occupying middle room in the ground floor. Upstair portion is in the occupation of the tenant in C.R.P.No.1750 of 2002. Building is facing the main road situated near a bus stand. Landlord is carrying on hotel business by name “Aiswarya Restaurant”. Landlord purchased the building in the year 1995 while he was tenant of the building along with other tenants. He bonafide required the tenanted premises for expansion of his hotel business and for additional accommodation for the existing hotel.

2. Tenants resisted the petition contending that the need is not bonafide and there is no necessity of additional accommodation. Further they also stated that the attempt of the landlord is for getting enhanced rent. Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence concurrently found that the need urged by the landlord is genuine and bonafide. We find no reason to hold otherwise in our revisional jurisdiction.

3. Rent Control Court however rejected the claim of the landlord under the first proviso to section 11(10) since it was satisfied that the hardship that maybe caused to the tenants by granting eviction will outweigh the advantage of the landlord. It would be profitable to extract the reasoning of the Rent Control Court in its own words.

“But it is clear that the petitioner has got some other business and income. The benefit that may be accrued to the petitioner is the development of his hotel business. He has got other business and income. That means his livelihood is not only on the income from the hotel but from other business also. So the need for additional accommodation is only intended for getting more income to the petitioner. This is the benefit or advantage that may be accrued to the petitioner. On the other hand the hardship that may be caused to the counter petitioners if eviction is allowed are that they are not in a position to get suitable accommodation the nearby place. Even if they get accommodation they have to spend huge amounts. Moreover there is no guarantee that the business in the new place will run smoothly as now. Lastly they are depending for their livelihood mainly on the income from the schedule room. So when we weigh the hardship of counter petitioners and benefits of the petitioner, definitely the hardship of the counter petitioners will outweigh the advantages to the petitioner. If eviction is allowed, in monetary terms the petitioner will be benefited. In such case hardship will be caused to the counter petitioners and according to them, even their livelihood will be deprived of. No doubt, the hardship in case of eviction is more on the side of the counter petitioners. In such case the court must give due importance to the hardship of the counter petitioners than the mere economic benefit of the petitioner.”

The appellant court did not support the above reasoning of the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority held as follows:

“The advantage which the landlord would derive is very evident. He was carrying on the business of running a restaurant from 1987. He had invested amounts and had purchased the building in which he was carrying on the restaurant activity as also the adjacent building. To derive the advantage of his investment he must have the petition schedule buildings in his possession. If he gets buildings elsewhere that would not serve his specific purpose. The additional space if available would enable him to continue to run his present activity better, more advantageously and in a more profitable and lucrative manner. These advantages will not have if he had c