Revision against order of Rent Controller dismissed.

M. Srinivasan, J.

1. This revision petition arises out of a petition for eviction filed by the respondent herein under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

2. The respondent sought for eviction on the averment that she was carrying on business under the name and style of 'Prince Hardwares' in partnership with some others. According to the respondent her business was being carried on in a rented premises at No. 156 Rasappa Chetty Street, Madras-1 and the tenancy therefor stood in the name of one of the partners, namely M.A. Hassan. It is alleged in the petition that the owners of the premises in which the respondent's business was being carried on filed a suit C.S.No. 10774 of 1978 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for eviction and also for damages and that the suit was pending. It was, therefore, the case of the respondent that there was immediate necessity for the respondent to get possession of the petition premises from the petitioner herein which is admittedly a tenant under the respondent.

3. The petition was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the claim of the respondent was not bona fide and that the need of the petitioner for the petition premises was greater than the requirement of the respondent.

4. All the averment made in the petition for eviction were denied by the petitioner in the counter statement.

5. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the respondent holding that the respondent was parrying on business in partnership with others in a rented premises and that she was under threat of eviction in a suit filed by the owner of the premises. The Rent Controller found that the respondent required the petition premises bona fide for the purpose of her partnership business. Consequently, the Rent Controller ordered eviction.

6. On appeal, the Appellate Authority confirmed the said order of the Rent Controller and held that the requirement of the respondent was bona fide.

7. In this revision petition, several grounds were urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is that the respondent was in possession of the first floor of the petition-premises for more than a year prior to the date on which evidence was recorded, in the present proceedings. Learned Counsel relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 in which it is stated that the area of the first floor and the area of the ground floor are equal. P.W.1 admitted that the entire first floor was vacant and it was in the possession of the respondent. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the first floor of the petition premises was non-residential premises and consequently, the respondent was not entitled to maintain the present petition for eviction. He relies upon the evidence of R.W.1 in which it is stated that the first floor is vacant for a year. In the next sentence, the deposition of R.W.1 reads; "that is godown area" It is argued that R.W.1 has only referred to the first floor as godown area. It is, therefore, contended vehemently that there is positive evidence on the side of the petitioner that the first floor is non-residential premises. For contra, it is contended by learned Counsel the respondent that the statement by R.W.1 referred to above is with reference to the locality and not the first floor as such. It is common knowledge that the locality in which the petition premises are situated is largely used as godown area by business people. Learned Counsel for the respondent draws my attention to the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that the respondent whenever she goes over to Madras used to stay in the first floor. It is also stated by P.W.1 that the boys working in the partnership business of the respondent also stay in the first floor. Learned Counsel also relies upon the evidence of R.W.1 wherein he had stated that in the first floor, people belonging to Muslim religion were staying. R.W.1 has also stated that the respondent was frequently coming to Ma