The requirement of the premises for the business carried on by the landlord in partnership with others can be equated with the requirement of the landlords themselves so as to attract Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Rent Control) Act, 1960.

ORDER :- This revision is directed against the order of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam in C. M. A. No. 5 of 1982, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent herein at the instance of the petitioner herein.

2. The petitioner is admittedly the owner of the premises which is occupied by the respondent as a tenant and in respect of which eviction has been sought for by him. The petitioner who is the owner of the premises in question filed an application for eviction of the respondent who is a tenant, under S.10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, on the ground that he requires the premises bona fide for his own use. The premises in question is a non-residential one and the case of the petitioner-landlord is that he requires the premises bona fide for carrying on his business which is being carried on in a premises not of his own in Kumbakonam town.

3. The said application for eviction was resisted by the respondent-tenant on various grounds of which the main ground is that the requirement of the landlord for his own use is not bona fide. To show that the application for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation is not bona fide, a reference has been made in the counter to certain earlier proceedings and the correspondence that was exchanged between the parties prior to the filing of the application to indicate that the intention of the landlord was to evict the respondent somehow and that the alleged requirement for the owner's occupation is only a ruse.

4. The Rent Controller after analysing the evidence adduced by both parties held that the requirement of the landlord of the premises for his own use is bona fide and therefore the petitioner is entitled to an order of eviction. In that view he directed eviction of the respondent from the premises in question. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority however has held that the application for eviction filed by the petitioner cannot be taken to be bona fide even if it is taken to have been filed bona fide, since the landlord requires the premises in question for the business of a partnership of which he is a partner, the building cannot be taken to be required for the landlord's own business and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to an order of eviction strictly under S.10 (3) (a) (iii). In this view, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. As already stated, the Rent Controller has held that the requirement of the landlord for his own use is bona fide. Of Course, this finding is without reference to the question as to whether the petitioner would require the building for his carrying on a business in partnership with third parties and such a requirement will fall within the scope of S.10 (3) (a) (iii) or not. It is only the Appellate Authority who has held that the application filed by the petitioner under S.10 (3) (a) (iii) cannot be maintained as the requirement of the premises is not for his own use but for the use of the partnership. The Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that even otherwise the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide. Thus, the two questions that arise for the consideration of this Court are (i) whether the requirements of the petitioner of the premises for his own use is bona fide and (ii) whether, even if the bona fide is established, the petitioner can invoke Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) when the requirement is not for his own use but for the use of the partnership of which he is a partner.

6. As regards the first question it is seen that the Appellate Authority proceeded to hold that the landlord's requirement for his own use is not bona fide, for the oblique purpose of filing such a petition is to get enhanced rent for the building. It is not ill dispute that there has been a written lease deed Ext. A1,