Reference in the matter is not of any purpose.

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 separately along with her children, her need must be taken to be bona fide.

5. The main question which fell, therefore, for consideration before the Rent Controller was whether the petitioners could be denied the relief on the ground that the premises were non-residential. The Rent Controller seemed to have inspected the premises and found that the house has got rooms, thalwaram, open space, bath room and kitchen and structurally the house was meant for residential purposes. It was also situated in a residential area. He, however, found that in the house the tenant had stored chillies. The Rent Controller referred to Section 21 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the' Act') which created a bar against converting a residential building to a non-residential building except with the permission of the Controller. It may be mentioned that the provisions of the Pondicherry Act are identical to those of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 11960. Holding that the building was essentially and structurally a residential house capable of being used for residential house capable of being used for residential purpose, the Rent Controller found that there was no bar in law for ordering eviction in such a case. Accordingly, he allowed the petition of the petitioners.

6. The tenant filed an appeal against this order. The Appellate Authority took the view that the premises were used for non-residential purpose and in such a case, only Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act would apply and eviction could not be ordered on the ground of requirement for personal occupation. He relied on two decisions of this Court, namely, (i) Lakshmanan v. Hajee Alluddin Saheb Sons; (ii) Padmavathiammal v. Manickam. These are also the decisions which were relied upon by the learned Counsel for the tenant respondent in this revision petition. The Appellate Authority, therefore, set aside the order of the Rent Controller, and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners.

7. In this revision petition which was filed challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the learned Counsel argued that the petitioners were clearly entitled to a relief under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, on the footing that the premises in question are a residential building and the mere fact that it was being used for nonresidential purpose, did not deprive the landlords of their right to claim this premises if the other conditions in Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act are satisfied. He relied heavily on the nature of the building and its structural characteristics referred to by the Rent Controller after personal inspection of the premises. He also contended that there is no other building of their own which they could occupy.

8. In the course of