Rent Controller has jurisdiction to go into the question.

Maheswaran, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Rent Control), Madras, in R.C.A. No. 1231 of 1982 reversing the order of the Rent Controller, Madras, in H.R.C. No. 2072 of 1981.

2. The respondent (referred to as landlord hereinafter) applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the revision petitioner, the tenant, on the ground that the petition schedule premises which he has purchased is required by him for carrying on business as he does not own a non-residential building of his own. The tenant is a Co-operative Rank. The rent payable is Rs. 1,000. The contention of the respondent is that the claim of the landlord is not bona fide as he is not doing any business of his own and as he is doing a family business in his family house at No. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore. in an additional counter, the tenant contended that in a partition among the members of the family of the landlord, the premises No. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore, has been allotted to the landlord and his brothers and that he carries on joint family business in that premises and therefore he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. This contention found favour with the Rent Controller who stated that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the building for carrying on pawnbroker business is not bona fide. The result of that finding was that the petition was dismissed. In appeal by the landlord, the Appellate Authority took the view that the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building of his own and therefore he is entitled to possession of the petition schedule property. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. The tenant has filed this revision.

3. The area of controversy is limited in scope. It is pointed out for the revision petitioner by his learned Counsel, Miss. Krishnaveni that the copy of partition deed, Ex.B-1, produced by the tenant shows that N. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore, was allotted to the share of the landlord and his brothers and their father and therefore he is occupying a building of his own and he cannot seek to evict the tenant for his occupying the petition schedule property, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

4. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the landlord is having only a share in that house at No. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore, and therefore he is entitled to maintain the application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act in respect of the petition schedule property. This point whether the landlord who is having a share only in the family house, can maintain an application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act need not detain us any longer in view of the ruling of this Court in M. Mani v. D. Ramalingam (1985) 98 L.W. 299. That Was a case where the expression "is not occupying a residential building of his own" occurring in Section 10(3)(a)(i) came to be interpreted. I have pointed out in that decision that the expression "is not occupying a residential building of his own" should be limited to the situation where the landlord is not occupying a residential building of which he is the sole owner thereof. As the same expression occurs in Section 10(3)(a)(iii), this ruling will hold good in case of requirement of non-residential building also. Therefore, the petition by the landlord respondent is perfectly maintainable.

5. The question now is whether an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession should be made. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord following a ruling of this Court in Abdul Rahman v. S. Sadasivam that there is no jurisdiction for the Rent Controller to go into the question of bona fide requirement in a claim under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Ramanujam, J. took the view that a distinction has to be made between the two sections, Sect