Under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the landlord need only establish that he or any member of his family is not occupying a non-residential building of his own for the purpose of business, and that the claim of the landlord is bona fide.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. The petitioners are the owners of the house, ground and premises bearing door No.6, Sarojini Street, Mahalingapuram, Madras-34, having purchased the same on 16-10-1980. The respondent is a tenant in occupation of the ground floor of the building for non-residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 425/- payable on or before the 1st of the succeeding English calendar month. According to the case of the petitioners, after the property was purchased by them, they demanded the rent payable by the respondent for the period from 16-10-1980 onwards but that the respondent did not pay the rents every month but paid the rent on 17-1-1981 including the rent for the month of December, 1980 and that the respondent had committed willful default in the payment of rent for 15 days in October, 1980 and for November and December,1980. It was the further case of the petitioners that they are carrying on business in a rented premises under the name and style of "Rasi Enterprises" at door No. 23 (old door No. 82), Armenian Street, Madras-1 and that the petitioners bona fide needed the premises in the occupation of the respondent for the purpose of their own business. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners filed HRC. No. 1859/81 before the Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for an order of eviction.

2. The respondent, while admitting the tenancy under the petitioners, contended that the previous owner used to collect the rents once in two or three months and that he had to stay in Bombay for a long period and on his return a sum of Rs. 2,337-50 p. representing the rents for 15 days in October, 1980 and November and December, 1980 and a sum of Rs. 850/-towards security deposit and Rs. 425/-towards rental advance for one month were paid and that subsequently on 31-1-1981, the rent for January, 1981 was also paid and, therefore, there was no willful default in the payment of rents for the period between 16-10-1980 and 31-12-1980. The bona fides of the need of the petitioners for the purpose of carrying on their own business in hardware was disputed by the respondent. The respondent also contended that the petitioner was only desirous of securing enhanced rent from the respondent and only with this view, the application for eviction had been filed.

3. Before the Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, on behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.I and Exhibits P.1 to P. 11 were filed, while, on behalf of the respondent, R.W.I gave evidence and Exs.R-1 to R-4 were marked. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the case of the petitioners that ' they bona fide needed the premises in the occupation of the respondent for their own business use and occupation was not established. However, on the question of the non-payment of the rent for 15 days in October, 1980 and November and December, 1980 in time, the learned Rent Controller found that the respondent had not tendered the rent and had no explanation for such non-payment and under those circumstances the default could only be willful. In view of this conclusion, an order of eviction was passed against the respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller directing the eviction of the respondent on the ground of willful default, the respondent herein preferred an appeal RCA. 95/82 before the Appellate Authority (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The petitioners also preferred an appeal in RCA 114/82 before the Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras), in so far as an order for eviction based on Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was refused by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Mad