Landlords stand for eviction cannot be held inconsistent.

Srinivasan, J.

1. By my order dated December 7, 1988, I called a finding from the Rent Controller on the question whether the respondent herein require the portions in the. occupations of the revision petitioner bona fide for the purpose of their business. I permitted the parties to let in evidence before the Rent Controller and directed the latter to consider the evidence on record and submit a finding. In the said order, I had considered some of the contentions urged by the revision petitioners and gave my decision thereon. First I rejected the argument that the Appellate Authority was in error in receiving additional evidence produced before him and held that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority was proper and authorised by law. Secondly, the contention that the application ought to have been filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and it was not maintainable as it was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was negatived by me. Thirdly, I held that the respondents were carrying on business in premises which are not owned by them.

2. I felt it necessary to give an opportunity to the parties to let in evidence as regards to bona fide requirement as defined by the Supreme Court in Hamedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sow-car, 102 L.W. 1(S.CA.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1060). I permitted the parties to let in evidence on the question whether the portions of the building whether the portions of the building which fell vacant after the filing of the eviction petitions and were in the control of the respondents were sufficient for the purpose of the businesses of the respondents.

3. Both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence before the Rent Controller after my said order. The Rent Controller has given a finding that the requirement of respondents is bona fide and that the portions which fell vacant already after the filing of the eviction petitions were not sufficient to meet the needs of the respondents.

4. The revision petitioners have filed their objections to the findings returned by the Rent controller. They took me through the evidence on record and argued at length that the respondents have not made out their case of bona fide requirement for the purpose of their own business. Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised several contentions and I am dealing with them here under seriatim:

1.(i) Before the filing of the petitions for eviction, the respondents had issued a notice dated 7-3-1984, marked as Ex. R3 to the effect that the building was very old and in a dilapidated condition and they require the same for demolition and erection of a new superstructure, but when they filed the petitions for eviction, they claimed that they require the building for their own occupation for the purpose of their business. According to learned Counsel, the respondents have taken two inconsistent positions thereby and their requirement for own occupation cannot be said in bona fide as they had expressed an intention earlier to demolish the same. While elaborating the submission on this aspect of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the recital in the sale deed under which the respondents purchased the building on 6-12-1983. The sale deed has been marked as Ex.P.7. The recital on which reliance is placed as follows:

Whereas the schedule mentioned property is very old and is in a dilapidated condition and whereas the rental income from the said property whereas the rental income from the said property is not much and whereas the said rental income is wiped off for the payment of property taxes, maintenance charges and other expenses and whereas it is not advisable to own such a old and dilapidated building; and whereas the Vendors do not have the means and inclination to demolish the old building and re-construct a new one; whereas the Vendors deem it fit to have the property sold.

In Annexure I-A to the sale deed, the age of the building i