1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed in R.C.A. No. 16 of 2001, dated 31.7.2003, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Court), Ootacamund, reversing the fair and decretal order made in R.C.O.P. No. 17 of 1996, dated 16.4.2001, on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ootacamund.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the subject matter of tenancy was the premises and the building thereon known as "Beverly" situated at Havelock Road, Ootacamund. Before filing the Rent Control Original Petition the respondent/landlord filed a suit in O.S. No.102 of 1992 before the District Munsif Court, Ootacamund, alleging that the premises was let out to the petitioners/tenants for running a lodging house or any other similar business and the lease was a composite lease. The said suit was dismissed on 2.1.1995, holding that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alone would apply and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the Rent Control Original Petition came to be filed by the respondent/landlord.

4. The respondent/landlord had filed R.C.O.P. No. 17 of 1996 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Ootacamund against the deceased first petitioner/tenant for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This petition was subsequently amended deleting Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and incorporating Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The Learned Rent Controller, after an elaborate trial, by a well considered order, held that the requirement of the respondent/landlord was not bona fide and dismissed the Eviction Petition filed by the landlord.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/landlord had filed R.C.A. No. 16 of 2001, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Court), Ootacamund, and the same was allowed. Against the said fair and decretal order, dated 31.7.2003, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

6. It is submitted by the petitioners that the learned Appellate Authority, without adverting to the pleadings and without properly appreciating the evidence or the issues before him reversed the well considered decision of the Rent Controller. It is further submitted that the respondent/landlord had now settled down in Malaysia and his sons were settled at Chennai, Bangalore and other places and there was no one in the respondent/landlord family either residing or doing any business within Ooty Municipality. The Rent Control Original Petition was filed by one Mr. Sathappan, claiming to be the Power of Attorney of the respondent/landlord, which Power of Attorney did not authorize him to institute any eviction proceedings.

7. Though it is the case of the respondent/landlord that his grand children were studying at Ooty and he would be visiting Ooty to see them, P.W.1, the Power Agent had admitted that at present none of the grand children of the respondent/landlord are studying at Ooty. The respondent/ landlord had also claimed that he visits Ooty during the season and hence, he required the premises for his own use. This claim for temporary or seasonal stay cannot be a valid requirement of the landlord for own use.

8. It is further submitted that the respondent/landlord had admitted that the petitioners were running a residential school in the premises and the paramount usage of the premises was for the running of the school. The landlord being aware of the said fact, filed a Petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) but subsequently deleted the same and inserted Section 10(3)(a)(i) to give credibility to his innovative theory that he required the premises for his own residential purposes. The further case of the petitioners is that the teamed Appellate Authority, ignoring the lease deeds marked as Exs.P-2, P-3 and P-4 regarding the nature of tenancy, on mere as