Occupation of fractional interest in the premises is not such occupation.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. The teriants, against whom the Appellate Authority had passed an order for eviction, on an application taken out by the respondents herein in R.C.O.P. No. 134 of 1983 under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 10 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred t(c) as 'the Act') are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. There is no dispute that the respondents herein are the landlords of the premises in the occupation-of the petitioners and that they had purchased the premises in moieties under Exs. A-1 and A.2 dated 25.6.1980. In R.C.O.P. No. 134 of 1983 before the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Salem, the respondents prayed for an order of eviction against the petitioners on the ground that they had purchased the property in the occupation of the petitioners for their own use and enjoyment and that they also bona fide required the premises for that purpose. The application was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that two separate applications for eviction should have been filed by the respondents and that the respondents were not entitled to maintain the application under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act, and further that their requirement was not bona fide.

2. Before the rent controller, on behalf of the respondents Exs. A-1 to A-18 were marked and the first respondent gave evidence as P.W. 1, while on behalf of the petitioners, the second petitioner was examined as R. W. 1. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned rent controller found that the respondents have not made out their bona fide requirement of the premises in the occupation of the petitioners and, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to an order for eviction. On those conclusions, the application for eviction filed by the respondents was dismissed. Aggrieved by that, the respondents herein preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 19 of 1989 before the Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Salem. On a consideration of the evidence the Appellate Authority found that the application filed by the respondents praying for eviction of the petitioners was maintainable and that the respondents were also entitled to an order for eviction against the petitioners under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act, as their requirement was bona fide. In the result, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered that eviction of the petitioners from the premises in their occupation.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners first contended that the application for eviction filed by the respondents under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act should not have been entertained, as the respondents ^came to own and possess interest in another premises, which belonged to their deceased mother and which, on her death, had devolved upon the respondents, their sisters and father. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents (sic.) owned the premises purchased by her under Ex. A-1, but she had died arid on her death, the respondents herein, their two sisters and their father became entitled to a fractional interest in that property and the owning or possessing of a fractional, interest in a property would not preclude the respondents from maintaining the application under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. In this connection, attention was also invited to the decisions reported in H.K Bhava v. N.T. Rahmathunissa 99 L. W. 865 and Anandan v. K.R. Lakshmanan Chettiar 88 L.W. 999.

4. There is no dispute that the mother of the respondents owned under Ex. A-3 the premises dealt with thereunder and that she had died. On her death, it is not in dispute, the respondents herein, their two sisters and their father became entitled to fractional interest in that property in accordance with the personal law governing them. It has been repeatedly held by a series of decisions of this Court that the owning or possessing of fractional interest in a premises cannot