Pleadings and proof necessary for proving the allegations.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act praying to set aside the judgment dated 17.7.1997 rendered in R.C.A.No.88 of 1993 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Madurai thereby reversing the order dated 28.7.1993 made in R.C.O.P.No.171 of 1986 by the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Madurai.)

The landlords, who were successful in getting an order of eviction before the Rent Controller, have failed to sustain the same, when it was challenged before the Appellate Authority and the result is this revision petition.

2. The petition mentioned building, a non-residential one, belongs to the petitioners 1 and 2 in the R.C.O.P., who are sisters. The husband of the second petitioner is carrying on jewellery business in a rented building whereas the husband of the first petitioner has acquired experience in gold jewellery business. Because of these facts, the building is required for the husbands' of the petitioners 1 and 2 for the purpose of carrying on their business. The tenant, who has agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.300/= for the demised premises, has not paid the rent from April, 1984 to January, 1986, for a period of 22 months, despite notice. On the above said grounds, viz. wilful default and for personal occupation, invoking the provisions of Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the landlords have filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No.171 of 1986 for the eviction of the tenant/respondent.

3. The tenant/respondent objected the claim of the landlords, contending that the agreed monthly rent for the demised premises is only Rs.65/= and not Rs.300/= as alleged, that the rent has been paid upto the end of January, 1986 and thereafter, when tendered, the landlords have refused to receive the same demanding enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.300/= p.m., resulting rents being sent by Money Order and that the husbands' of the petitioners 1 and 2 are not carrying on any business and that the requirement for their occupation, invoking Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is not true as well as not bona fide.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, parties went on trial before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller examined P.W.1. i.e. the husband of the second petitioner in the R.C.O.P. and marked certain documents, which were sought to be nullified by the examination of the tenant as R.W.1 in addition to seeking aid from certain documents. The evaluation of the above materials satisfied the Rent Controller to certain extent to say 'YES' to the claim of the landlords. Though the landlords have claimed in the petition that the agreed rent between the parties for the demised premises was Rs.300/= p.m., a peculiar finding has been given by the Rent Controller, concluding the agreed rent as Rs.150/= p.m., which is neither the case of the landlords nor the case of the tenant. Thus concluding, the contractual monthly rent between the parties must be Rs.150/=, the Rent Controller has further deduced that the tenant has not paid the rent at the rate of Rs.150/= p.m. for the period mentioned and therefore the non-payment of the rent should amount to 'wilful default'. Then, while discussing the claim of the landlords for personal occupation, the Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the petitioners are carrying on business in the name and style of 'Rajagopal Jewellers' in a rented premises and therefore, their requirement of their own property for their personal occupation must be bona fide. It is also the conclusion of the Rent Controller that the tenant cannot dictate the landlords to choose the place for their business, as seen from paragraph 10 of the order. Thus concluding, the Rent controller has ordered eviction of the tenant, as per the order dated 28.7.1993, which came to be challenged before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.88 of 1993.

5. The learned