Requirements has to be established.

S. Mohan, J.

1. The revision is by the landlord who sought eviction of the respondent under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) for wilful default in payment of rent; under Section 10(2)(vii) for denial of title of the landlord; under Section 10(3)(a)(in) for bona fide need of the landlord for occupation of non-residential premises; and under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction of the petition mentioned premises.

2. The petition-property is admittedly a non-residential property which is situate in T. S. No. 2622 in South Main Street, Pudukkottai. This property as well as the adjoining property bearing T.S. No. 2621 were purchased by the revision petitioner from the previous owner Jayachandran. This was under the sale deed dated 14th September, 1978, marked as Exhibit A-1. This respondent had been a tenant for more than 25 years. The petitioner is doing business in a rented building which is opposite to the suit property and he is under the threat of eviction since the owner of the rented premises had taken eviction proceedings. It is under these circumstances, the application for eviction is filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent for the months of November and December, 1978 and January, 1979, which totaled upto Rs. 120. When a notice was sent to the tenant he replied that there was an agreement to sell the petition-property in his favour and therefore the purchase of the property by the petitioner was on behalf of the respondent as well. This was under the reply notice, Exhibit A-3. In view of this, another ground was added, viz., wilful denial of title. The other two grounds were, inasmuch as the revision petitioner is carrying on business, in a rented premises and he is under threat of eviction he needs the petition premises for his own bonafide need for occupation to carry on business in coffee-powder and selling coffeepowder. Lastly it was urged that the petition-premises was bona fide required for immediate demolition and reconstruction.

3. In defence the tenant (respondent) Contended that the previous owner Jayachandran took out eviction proceedings against him, but that proved to be unsuccessful and therefore the petitioner has come to purchase the property solely with a view to somehow evict the respondent. Actually there was a valid agreement for sale in favour of the respondent. In fact, the respondent is not denying the title of the petitioner to the property, but on the contrary, he was asserting his agreement for sale. There was no bona fide need for personal occupation nor again does the building require demolition and reconstruction.

4. The Rent Controller, on trial, dismissed the petition holding that none of the grounds alleged in the petition was true. Thereupon the matter vas taken up in appeal. The Appellate Authority concurred with the finding of the trial court on the ground of wilful default. He also held that there was no denial of title. On the bona fide need for personal occupation he was of the view that though the need had been made out, inasmuch as the landlord had come into possession of another non-residential building that will preclude him from maintaining the application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. He also concluded the bona fide need for personal occupation and demolition and reconstruction are mutually inconsistent and therefore the petitions were liable to be dismissed. It is against these concurrent orders the landlord has come up in revision.

5. The learned Advocate-General appearing for petitioner urges only this point leaving the others, viz., the ground of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii). After referring me to the relevant statutory provisions the argument proceeds that where applications were filed against two tenants occupying independent portions by mere reason of the fact that the landlord comes into possession of one of the portions,