T.N. Singaravelu, J.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondents-landlords filed the petition for eviction in respect of two nonresidential shops under Section 10(3)(c) of Act XVIII of 1960, for additional accommodation. The petitioner-tenant contended that the petition under Section 10(3)(c) is not maintainable since the premises constitute a separate building and therefore, the application should have been filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The tenant further contended that as per the terms of the contract of lease he is entitled to a renewal of the lease for four years and that the application for eviction is premature. Lastly, it was contended that in any event the requirement was not bona fide. The Rent Controller rejected the contentions of the tenant and ordered eviction. On appeal, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction and the tenant has come on revision.

2. Three points were raised before this Court by the tenant and I shall consider them one by one. The foremost question is whether or not the petition for eviction, is maintainable under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the tenant pointed out that there are six