Necessary conditions for obtaining order of eviction.

The petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.27 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller Mun-sif), Krishnagiri, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondents said R.C.O.P. are the respondents in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this order by the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.

2. The petitioner filed an application R.CO.P.No27 of 1981 for eviction against respondents under Secl0(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

“The two shops bearing door Nos.79 and 80 which are described in the schedule appended the petition belonged to the petitioner. The first respondent took door No.80 for rent about 1968 and door No.79 in 1969 on a monthly rent of Rs.80 and Rs.100 respectively occupied them. At present the rent for both the shops is Rs.500 per month. The petitioner has got three major sons of whom the youngest is studying in the Engineering College he would be completing his course soon. The other two sons are graduates. One of them engaged in the motor transport business and the other is without any job. The petitioner need of the petition mentioned shops for the auto parts, hardwares and electric business of his sons. The requirement of the petition mentioned shops for the business second and third sons is bona fide.”

3. The respondents resisted the application for eviction contending that the petitioner has idea of starting any business in auto parts or any other business for his sons. The petitioner is having many buildings, both residential and nonresidential, suitable for the business sons. The petitioner ’ s requirement of the shops is not bona fide.

4. The Rent Controller, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, found that petitioner ’ s requirement of the petition mentioned shops for the business of his sons is fide. Consequently the Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction. As against the of the Rent Controller the respondents filed an appeal, R.C.A.No.3 of 1986 on the file of Appellate Authority, Krishnagiri. The Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Controller, allowed the Rent Control Appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction filed the petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgment in R.C.A.No.3 of 1986 the petitioner has filed present civil revision petition.

5. The question we have to examine in this civil revision petition is:

“ Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act?

6. The petitioner’s case is that he requires the petition mentioned shops for the his sons. In such circumstances, the petitioner, in order to obtain an order of eviction the respondents under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, must satisfy the following four

(a) The petition mentioned shops must be non-residential;

(b) The petitioner’s sons for whose business the petitioner requires the petition shops must carry on a business;

(c) The petitioner’s sons for whose business the petitioner requires the shops occupying for the purpose of such business a nonresidential building of their own;

(d) The petitioner’s requirement of the petition mentioned shops for the business must be bona fide.

7. Admittedly the petition mentioned shops are non-residential portions in the building regard to the second condition, the settled position of law is that the landlord actually carry on the business when he makes an application for eviction of a tenant ground that he requires the building for his business. In Thiru Chelliah Pandithan Tmt.Anthoniammal, 98 L.W. 666, this Court, while dealing with the question whether landlord should actually carry on business in order to maintain the petition for against a tenant under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act held as follows:

“It appears to me that having regard to the later decisions, the fact that the landlords actually carrying on the business when they make an