Essential ingredients to be satisfied.

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The landlords within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, are the petitioners in this revision. The respondent herein is the tenant within the meaning of the Act. Now it has been found as a finding of fact that the third petitioner alone is entitled to the premises in question by virtue of an arrangement inter se amongst the petitioners. The petitioners sought the eviction of the respondent under Section 10(3) (a) (Hi) of the Act on the ground of requirement of the premises for the business of the third petitioner. The said business is stated to be an engineering business. The respondent contested the move of the petitioners for eviction and this contest was tested by the Controller and rejected by him, and the Controller ordered eviction of the respondent. The respondent appealed and the appellate authority has chosen to take a different view and has allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction. This revision is directed against the orders of the appellate authority.

2. Mr. R. Krishnamoorty, learned Advocate-General appearing for the petitioners, would submit that considerations totally irrelevant and extraneous for the purpose of deciding the case under Section 10(3) (a) (Hi) of the Act have weighed with the appellate authority and would submit that the evidence placed in the case amply bears out that the third petitioner did take, though not a series of steps but atleast sufficient steps to brine the case within the meaning of 'carrying on business' under Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act. After having gone through the judgment of the appellate authority, I am inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned Advocate-General appearing for the petitioners. To attract Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act. certain ingredients must be satisfied and they can be stated as follows:

(i) The building should be non-residential in character;

(ii) The landlord should be carrying on a business, the meaning to be attached to the expression "carrying on business" to be gleanced from judicial pronouncements of this Court in this behalf;

(iii) He should not be occupying any other non-residential building of his own in the city concerned for the purpose of his business;

(iv) The landlord must satisfy that his claim is bona fide.

3. With regard to conditions (i) and (iii) the facts of the present case do not present any controversy. The building in question is a non-residential one and the third petitioner is not occupying any other non-residential building of his own for the purpose of his business in the City in question. Conditions (ft) and (iv) alone have presented certain difficulties. But, in my view, the law as laid down by this Court on these questions if properly applied, does make even these difficulties get dissolved.

The expressions 'carrying on business' are of certain legal import. We cannot attach to them the ordinary dictionary meaning. The provision enables the landlord to obtain possession of his non-residential building rented out to a third party, if the landlord requires it for his own business and if he is not already occupying a non-residential building of his own, for the purpose of the said business. 'Carrying on' need not necessarily mean, the landlord must be already actually and actively carrying on the business. If the matter has already passed the stage of a bare intention or desire, and some steps towards its execution has been taken, that will suffice for the purpose of the pro-visions. It is not possible to lay down a hard and fast rule as to what that step should be, it will depend upon the nature of the business and other relevant factors, which could enable the carrying on of business.

This was the view which I have taken in M. Ramakrishnan Chettiar v. M. Perumal Serval C.R.P. no 728 of 1979, dated 4th September, 1980 and I wa