M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.

1. The petitioners are the heirs of the Neelakantan who admittedly owned the premises in question situated at Pondicherry. They filed a petition for eviction of the respondent who is admittedly using the premises for business purposes.

2. According to the petitioners, they were staying with the father of Neelakantan as a joint family, but since after the death of Neelankantan in 1979, differences had arisen in the family, the petitioners left the family house and are now living in a rented house. Their claim, therefore, is that they are without any house of their own and they require the premises in question for their personal occupation.

3. This petition is contested by the tenant on the ground that Neelakantan had already started proceedings against him for eviction on the ground that he needed the premises for starting a business, being H.R.C.O.P. No. 96 of 1974, which had been dismissed. The tenant denied that the petitioners require the premises.

4. The Rent Controller found that the petitioners did not have any other building of their own other than the demised premises. He took the view that since petitioner-1 had become a widow and wanted to live sepa