Exemption provisions attracted.

Fakkir Mohammed, J.

1. The tenants are the revision petitioners and the revision petition has been filed against the order of the appellate authority (III Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras) in R.C.A. No. 1479 of 1982, dated 1st February, 1983, reversing the dismissal order of the Rent Controller and granting an order of eviction in favour of the landlord.

2. The landlord filed H.R.C. No. 3876 of 1981, under section 10 (3) (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 on the ground of bona fide requirement of the building for the occupation of his son arid daughter-in-law. The demised building forms the rear portion of the building which is under the occupation of the landlord. The tenants have been paying a monthly rent of Rs. 500 which is made up of Rs. 400 for the building and Rs. 100 for amenities. The landlord is occupying the front portion of the building consisting of three rooms, hall, an open verandah, kitchen and a servant's bath room at a distance. The landlord is a retired Engineer and his wife is a Doctor. Out of the three rooms in their occupation one was kept exclusively for the office purposes of the landlord, one was exclusively used by his wife for her office work and for writing books and the third room is used as a common room for pooja purpose and kitchen, while the main hall was used for receiving friends and guests. The landlord's son Dr. B. Varaprasad was working in the M.S.I. Hospital, Madras and was residing in the quarters allotted to him. The landlord's daughter-in-law also is a Doctor and is employed in King's Institute, Guindy. Because the landlord's son joined M. S. Course, he had to vacate the quarters provided to him in E.S.I. Hospital and is occupying a rented building. It is under those circumstances the eviction petition was filed for the-requirement of the landlords son.

3. The tenants contested the eviction petition-pleading that an earlier eviction petition filed by the landlord on the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting was ultimately dismissed, that the requirement is not bonafide, since : the big portion in the occupation of the landlord, who is a retired Engineer, is sufficient for the occupation of his only son who is a Doctor and that the petition has been filed with the mala fide intention of some how or other evicting the tenants.

4. The learned Rent Controller framed two-points for consideration, one as to the maintainability of the eviction petition under Section 10(3) (a) (i) of the Act and the other as to the bona fide requirement of the landlord for the occupation) of his son. On the first point, the learned Rent Controller found that the petition is maintainable under Section 10(3) (a) (i) of the Act and on the next question of bona fide requirement, he found that even though the requirement for the occupation of the landlord's son may be bona fide; the requirement for the non-residential purpose of the landlord's son cannot be said to be 'bona fide and on that finding he has dismissed the eviction petition. The landlord filled R.C.A. No. 1479 of 1982 before the Appellate Authority against the finding and dismissal of the eviction petition.

5. It appears that in the course of arguments before the appellate authority it was urged on behalf of the tenants that the admitted rent being Rs. 500 per mensem, the demised building is exempt from the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act (XVIII of 1960). In paragraph 11 of the order of the appellate authority, a reference was made to the effect that one other contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant (mistake; for the tenants) is that the rent for the petition mentioned premises is Rs. 500 and, therefore, the building is exempt under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act (XVIII of 1960), and that the petition for eviction is not maintainable and such a contention was raised only in the appellate Court. The Appellate authority has also observed in the same paragraph that having submitted before the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller