Contention for not maintaining the petition rejected.

S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.

1. The respondent-tenant in H.R.C. No. 705 of 1980, on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller, Madras (XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras), has preferred this revision, questioning the legality and validity of the judgment made by the Appellate Authority (II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in H.R.A. No. 71 of 1981) on his file, setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the petition preferred by the landlords (respondents herein) and allowing the appeal and ordering eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The brief facts of the case, which gave rise to these proceedings, are as follows: Respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the sons of late Sri Milapchand Dadha, residing at No. 93, Lloyds Road, Madras-14 filed a petition against the revision petitioner, namely, the Bank of Baroda represented by its Chairman, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, seeking an order of eviction of the tenant from the building and premises bearing door No. 133, Mint Street, Madras-1 on the ground set out in the petition. According to the respondents, their father died on 12th October, 1976, and they have become the owners of the building which was let out to the revision petitioner in early 1967 for a non-residential purpose, namely, for running its branch office. Initially, the Bank occupied only the ground-floor, but subsequently, it became a tenant in respect of the entire building with effect from 1st September, 1970. The monthly rent for the entire building was Rs. 3,500. The respondents are businessmen engaged in various business activities under various names which they have set out in the petition and they are carrying on their business only in various rented buildings and they do not have any other non-residential building and premises for accommodating their administrative office of their group companies within the City of Madras. Hence they bona fide require the petition-mentioned building and premises both for accommodating their administrative office and for carrying on their business activities. The revision petitioner-Bank when requested to vacate the building, initially promised to vacate hut subsequently refused to do so, Therefore, the respondents caused a lawyer's notice Exhibit P-1, dated 4th August, 1979 to be sent to the revision petitioner to vacate the building. The revision petitioner sent a reply, Exhibit P-2, dated 21st August, 1979, containing untenable allegations. One of the allegations in Exhibit P-2, that one of the respondents demanded enhanced rent of Rs. 10,000 from 3,500 is absolutely incorrect, and untrue.

3. The revision petitioner has filed a counter-statement, raising the following contentions. It was once suggested by the father of the respondents that the property in question belonged to the joint family of which the father of the respondents was the karta. Further, it was stated that Srimathi Balu Bai, Srimathi Kaval Kavar, Sri M. Mahendrachand Dadha, Sri M. Mahipalchand Dadha, Sri M. Maher-chand Dadha, Srimathi Kanchan Kavajr Kankaria and Srimathi Chandan Kavar Baid were surviving legal heirs of the said Sri L. Milapchandji Dadha who died on 12th October, 1976, that the said Milapchand Dadha had executed a will, dated 1st January, 1974, the copy of which is annexed to Exhibit R-2, and that under the said will Milapchand Dadha had appointed his younger brother ,Sri Section Mohanchand Dadha and his son M. Mahendrachand Dadha as executors, who were taking necessary steps to obtain the probate. In spite of several correspondences between the parties it is not known whether the will had been probated or not. As the property in question is situate within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court, Madras and the will has been executed within the above-mentioned limits, the executors under the will cannot est