Once the requirement of landlord is held bonafide, other things become irrelevant.

C.R.P.No.1850 of 2003 has arisen from the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Dindigul, made in R.C.A.No.24 of 1999 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, wherein the petition filed by the landlord, the first respondent herein in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1989 under Sections 10(2) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to evict the tenant was dismissed, while the second revision in C.R.P.No.1851 of 2003 has arisen from the judgment of the Appellate Authority made in R.C.A.No.23 of 1999 reversing the order of the Rent Controller wherein the petition filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.85 of 1988 under Sec.8(5) of the Act to deposit the monthly rental in Court was allowed.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 as arrayed in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1989.

3. One Manickam Chettiar, the second respondent alleging that he was a tenant under the petitioner landlord; that when lawful tenders were made of the rent directly and through money order, they were refused by the landlord, and hence, there arose a necessity to deposit the rental in Court, filed R.C.O.P.No.85 of 1988. The same was contested by the petitioner landlord stating that he was not a tenant under him; but, the property was leased out to one Ruthri Chettiar, the first respondent, under whom he was a subtenant.

4. Demanding eviction, the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1989 alleging that that the property fell to his share in the family partition, which took place in the year 1986; that in the year 1974, the first respondent took the property on lease for conducting his nut stall; that subsequent to the partition, the first respondent recognizing the ownership of the landlord, was paying the rental of Rs.150/- per month; that while so, he sublet the property to the second respondent; that the landlord is running his grocery shop in a rented premises, and thus, he is in need of the petition mentioned premises; that he issued a legal notice on 16.7.88 to both the respondents; that the first respondent, despite service, has not issued any reply; and that the second respondent issued a reply notice containing false allegations, and hence, the petition has to be allowed. The first respondent contested the application stating that he originally took on lease the premises which was subsequently divided into three parts; that they were assigned with door Nos.187, 188 and 189; that he was originally paying the monthly rental at Rs.70/- and thereafter, the enhanced monthly rental of Rs.90/-, and now, he is paying Rs.150/- per month; that he retained Door No.189 and delivered possession to the landlord in respect of Door Nos.187 and 188; that therefrom, he had no connection to the premises situated in Door Nos.187 and 188; that the landlord leased out the property to the second respondent, and there was no sublease, and so, he was not a necessary party to the proceedings. The application was contested by the second respondent stating that he has denied the sub tenancy; that he has directly taken the property on lease; that he has been paying the rental; that it is not correct to state that the landlord required the premises for his personal occupation; that it has been only for the purpose of raising the rental; that in order to protect his right, after sending the rental through money order, he has filed RCOP No.85/88 for depositing the rental arrears, and hence, the petition was to be dismissed.

5. The learned Rent Controller, after enquiry, allowed R.C.O.P.No.85 of 1988 while dismissed R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1989. Aggrieved petitioner landlord preferred two appeals in R.C.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 1999. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on enquiry allowed both the appeals and reversed the finding recorded by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved revision petitioners have brought forth these revisions.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings in RCOP 11/89, both the first and second respondents