The requirement of the premises for the partnership business of the husbands of the landlords could be served by invoking S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

ORDER :- The two petitioners in this revision, as 'landlords' within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960. (hereinafter referred to as the Act), sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant herein by invoking the aid of S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. According to them, they purchased the premises in question for the purpose of running a jewellery business run by their husbands, which business having been started by their husbands as partners under the name and style of 'Ameer Jewellery Mart' is being run in another premises which is not their own. The Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Tirunelveli, who entertained the petition of the landlords in HRC No. 43 of 1972, found the case tenable on facts and countenanced their plea for eviction of the tenant and allowed the petition for eviction. The tenant filed an appeal, C.M.A. No. 24 of 1973, which was heard and disposed of by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Tirunelveli, and the Appellate Authority set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction by the 'landlords' on a reasoning that the premises in which 'Ameer Jewellery Mart' the business of the husbands of the landlords is being carried on belongs to the son of the first of the landlords. The present revision is directed against the orders of the Appellate Authority.

2. Before me, it is not disputed that the husbands of the landlords carry on a business of their own in partnership. The contention that because the premises where they are carrying on their partnership business at present under the name and style of 'Ameer Jewellery mart' belongs to the son of the first of the landlords, they must be deemed to be carrying on the business in the premises of their own cannot be upheld. The Appellate Authority points out that the document, Ex. B3. which is a registration copy of a sale deed, makes out that the premises where at present the partnership business is being carried on belongs only to the son of the first of the 'landlords'. The ownership can then be only with the son of the first of the landlords. On such facts, it cannot be stated that the ownership of the son is the ownership of the father so that it can be put against a case under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The reasoning of the Appellate Authority in this connection cannot be upheld.

3. Mr. P.N. Venugopalan, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant, has raised another objection which savours of legal flavour. Learned counsel states that the proceedings having been initiated under S.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act before the amendment introduced by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973, the requirement of the premises concerned for the partnership business of the husbands of the landlords cannot fit in with the said provision. In my view, on a proper construction of the said prevision, as it stood even prior to the amendment introduced by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973, the case of the 'landlords' as put forth by them can definitely be served by the said provision. Prior to the amendment introduced by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973, Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act reads as follows :-

"(3)(a) A landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building ...... (i) ...... (ii) ...... (iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord or his son is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or his son is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own.

By the amendment, the amended provision reads as follows -

"(3)(a) A landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building- (i)...... (ii)... (iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord or any member of hi