Landlord did not satisfy his bonafide requirement.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. The petitioners are the owners of the premises bearing door No. 389 (old No. 524), T.H. Road, Washermanpet, Madras, 21. In 1965, this building was purchased from one Nagappan by Subbiah Nadar and Thangaraj Nadar, brothers of Paul Pandia Nadar, the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner herein. Even prior to the purchase of the property, the first respondent was in occupation as a tenant of a portion of the building and was running a tea shop paying a rent of Rs. 65 per month. Subsequent to the purchase the first respondent attorned the tenancy to the purchase and was paying a rent of Rs. 75 per month. The petitioners stated that the first respondent had unauthorisedly sublet the premises where he was running a tea shop to the second respondent without the consent in writing of the petitioners. Further, the petitioners stated that they were running a flour mill known as Raja Flour mills in another portion of the building next adjacent at the back of the building in which the first respondent was running a tea shop, that the flour mill so run by the petitioners did not have direct access from the main road and also that the petitioners required more accommodation for their mill as they proposed] to expand and enlarge their business. Alleging that the existing accommodation is insufficient and that the portion in the occupation of the first respondent is required by the petitioners for their business needs as and by way of additional accommodation, the petitioners filed H.R.C. No. 157 of 1980, against the respondents herein under Section 10(2) (ii) (a) and Section 10(3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (as amended by Act XXIII of 1973), (hereinafter referred : to as the Act).

2. The first respondent admitted his tenancy under the first petitioner in respect of one Shop in premises No. 389, T. H. Road, Madras-21, on a monthly rental of Rs. 75, the tenancy being according to English calendar month. The unauthorised sub-lease of the tea shop to the second respondent was denied and first respondent stated that the second respondent was only his servant looking after the shop and he was being paid a salary. The requirement of the petitioners by way of additional accommodation was disputed by the first respondent on the ground that such requirement is neither true nor bona fide and that, in any event, the hardship that may be caused to the first respondent will outweigh the advantage to the petitioners as the tea shop was the only source of livelihood for the first respondent. The running of the flour mill by the petitioners was also disputed by the first respondent. On the aforesaid grounds, the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the application for eviction. The second respondent adopted the counter of the first respondent.

3. Before the Rent Controller (10th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, on behalf of the petitioners, the second petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and another tenant was examined as P.W. 2 and Exhibits P-1 to P. 4 were marked, while, on behalf of the respondents, first respondent alone was examined as R.W. 1 and Exhibit R-1 was relied upon. On a consideration of oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Rent Controller found that it had not been established that there was a sub-lease of the tea shop by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent and that the requirement of the petitioners of the premises in the occupation of the first respondent as and by way of additional accommodation for purposes of the business of the petitioners, was not bona fide. On these conclusions, the application for eviction was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners preferred H.R.A. No. 1423 of 1980 to the Appellate Authority (6th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. On a reconsideration of the evidence, the Appellate Authority also concurred with the conclusions of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appe