In the case of bona fide claim for own occupation order of eviction would normally ensue.

S. Mohan, J.

1. The revision, lies in a short compass. The tenant aggrieved about the concurrent orders has preferred this revision. The respondent-landlady filed the petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for own occupation of the non-residential premises bearing door No. 201, Appa Rao Gardens, Sydenhams Road, Madras-7. The monthly rent is Rs. 1,000 for the non-residential purpose. The respondent's husband is carrying on timber business under the name and style of Ashok Timber Corporation in a rented premises at No. 196, Appa Rao Gardens, Sydenhams Road, Madras-7. Hence the requirement is bona fide. A notice was issued on 18th September, 1978, terminating the tenancy by the end of March, 1979, calling upon the revision petitioner to vacate and surrender possession, to which there has been neither a reply, nor compliance with the demand. Thus, the petition for eviction.

2. In the counter of the revision petitioner, it was contended that the respondent owns a non-residential building in the City of Madras and, therefore, is not entitled to the relief asked for, for the purpose of her husband's business. The revision-petitioner has established his business in the petition-mentioned premises for the past several years and hence he will be put to great loss and hardships, should there be an order of eviction. The petition has been filed only with an oblique motive to coerce the revision petitioner to pay enhanced rent. The Rent Controller ordered eviction holding that the need of the respondent was bona fide. On appeal, the appellate authority was of the following view:

As usual the appellant (tenant) has also alleged in the counter that the petition is intended only to coerce the appellant to pay enhanced rent. But there is absolutely no evidence to hold that the respondent ever demanded enhanced rent or that the appellant refused to pay the same. On a consideration of all these circumstances, I find on this point that the requirement of the petition-premises by the respondent for the purpose of the business which her husband P.W. 1 is actually carrying on is true and bona fide.

Therefore, he confirmed the order.

3. It is argued now in the revision that the authorities below have held wrongly that the question of bona fides is immaterial. Notwithstanding the fact that the respondent's husband is carrying on business in a rented premises and that neither the respondent nor her husband owns a non-residential premises in the City of Madras, yet it was imperative on the part of the authorities below to have gone into the bona fides. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on Ramachandra Rao v. Krishnaswami Iyengar (1976) 1 M.L.J. 267, as well as P.B. Desai v. C.M. Patel . It is not correct on the part of the authorities below to have proceeded on the footing that once the conditions contemplated under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' are established, an order of eviction should follow automatically. That certainly is not a correct approach. In Mohammed Jaffar v. Palaniappa Chettiar which is a case that arose under Section 10(3)(e) of the Act, the Court had regard for Section 10(3)(e) where under the Controller is called upon to decide the bona fide need. Likewise, in Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahmad Khan . If really those requirements alone are to be satisfied, there will be no scope for application of Section 10(3)(e). As to what is bona fide requirement has been laid down in Nanalal Goverdhandas and Co. v. Samratbai. The word 'require' came up for interpretation holding that it must be bona fide. Therefore, the failure on the part of the authorities below to go into this important aspect of the matter vitiates the, orders which are liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent would rely upon N. Sampathu Chettiar v. S.V. Bapulal (1967) 1 M.L.J. 289, and contend that where the facts as established in. th