A petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is maintainable even if the shops in question are separately numbered, provided they are situated in the same building. However, such a petition is premature if the tenant has exercised his option for renewal of the lease in writing before the expiry of the lease period, and the landlords have purchased the property with knowledge of the contract for renewal. Furthermore, the requirement for additional accommodation must be bona fide, and the hardship caused to the tenant by eviction must not outweigh the advantage to the landlords.

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 shops in that building in a row, each of them bearing separate door numbers. The landlords are running their business in textiles in shops 1 and 2. The premises in dispute are door Nos. (shops) 5 and 6. The two shops in between, namely shops 3 and 4, belong to third parties. Originally, the entire building belonged to one person who sold the shops 1 and 2 to the landlords herein, and three years later, sold shops Nos. 5 and 6 to the same landlords. Admittedly, shops 3 and 4 were sold to third parties. The premises in dispute are not contiguous to door numbers 1 and 2 and therefore, it is argued that for all purposes, they constitute a separate building and that the landlords cannot ask for additional accommodation treating them as a portion of the same building. It is common ground that the assessment and the entries in the property -tax register of the Corporation for the premises in question are separate, though they are comprised in the same building. It is also common ground that the entire building does not belong to the respondents-landlords, since shops 3 and 4 were admittedly sold to third parties who are in occupation of the same. Both the Courts below found that since the shops in question are also situated in the same building, the landlords are entitled to file a petition under Section 10(3)(c) for additional accommodation. For this proposition, reliance was placed by the landlords on the decision reported in Veerappa Nctidu v. Gopalari (1961) 1 M.L.J. 223. Therefore, the mere fact that this shops are separately numbered by the Corporation for purposes of assessment is not a bar for the maintainability of the application of the landlords under Section 10(3)(c). It cannot be said that the shops 5 and 6, viz., the premises in question constitute a separate building disentitling the landlord to apply under Section 10(3)(c). I agree with the findings of the lower Courts on the question of 'maintainability.

3. T will now take up the other point namely that the tenant has exercised his option for renewal of lease as per the terms of the lease deed and therefore, the present petition for eviction is premature. It is common ground that the tenant entered into possession by virtue of a written lease deed executed in favour of the landlords' vendor on 26th January, 1970, for a period of five years ending with 31st January, 1975, with an option to renew the lease for a further period of four years. Before the expiry of the period of five years of lease the tenant had exercised his option in writing to the vendor of the landlords on 20th August 1974. The landlords purchased the premises only in February, 1975. Exhibit R-4 is the registered notice sent by the tenant to the original landlord Sankaran on 20th August, 1974, clearly expressing that the ten