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 r