Maintainability of the eviction petition filed by landlord.

Srinivasan, J.

1. This revision is by the tenant, who has suffered an order of eviction before the authorities below.

2. The respondent sought eviction on the grounds of wilful default and requirement for own occupation for residential purpose. The Rent Controller negatived the ground of wilful default and ordered eviction on the ground of requirement for own occupation. The Appellate Authority confirmed the said order. The tenant filed C. R. P. No. 1849 of 1984 in this Court. By that time, another tenant against whom a similar eviction petition was filed at the same time by the respondent had vacated and that portion was occupied by the respondent herein. It was argued in that Revision Petition that the portion occupied by the respondent was sufficient for his purposes and the bona fide of the requirement ceased to exist. Sathar Sayeed, J., accepted that contention and by his order on 3-1-1986 remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority with the following observation:

I am of the view, considering the contention of the learned Counsel of the petitioner that the said tenant Selvaraj has vacated a portion of the premises, it is just and reasonable that a finding has to be given by the appellate authority as to whether the portion, which fall vacant, is sufficient and suitable for the landlord for his own use and occupation. It is on this ground alone, the matter is remitted to the appellate authority (VI Judge Court of Small Causes, Madras) to find out the requirement of the landlord, namely, whether the vacated portion by Selvaraj is sufficient for the landlord's own use and occupation. This is the only point that was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3. After remand, the respondent gave further evidence and filed a partition deed, which was marked as Exhibit P.7 after considering its evidence adduced, the appellate authority found that the total area available to the respondent was only 268 square feet and that the respondent's family consists of six members including himself and his wife. The appellate authority found that the portion occupied by the other tenant namely Selvaraj, which was recovered from him by the landlord during the pendency of the revision petition was not sufficient for the purposes of occupation by the respondent. Hence, the appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the requirement of the respondent is bona fide and consequently dismissed the appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petition for eviction is not maintainable as the respondent is residing in a rented premises outside the city of Madras. Learned Counsel places reliance on the decision of Justice Srinivasan, in K.S. Subramania Naidu v. V.R. Mohammed Syauddin 81 L.W. (J.S.) 34. That case arose out of a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Madras buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The learned Judge held that, "the underlying implication of Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act cannot apply to a case where the business carried on is in a town different from the one in which the disputed premises is situated." Though I have my own doubts about the correctness of that decision, it cannot certainly apply to a case under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The relevant portion of the section reads as follows:

A landlord may, subject to the provisions of Clause (d), apply to the Controller for in order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building-

(i) in case it is a residential building, if the landlord requires it for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the landlord is occupying a building outside the city concerned, he cannot maintain a petition for eviction under the said section. I do not agree. The section does not say that the landlord should be occup