Landlady does not own any other non-residential building of her own.

1. This revision petition is preferred by the tenant/second respondent before the Rent Controller and appellant in the Rent Control Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.8 of 1995 dated 30.6.1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Ranipet, confirming the fair and decretal orders passed by the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ranipet in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1990 dated 8. 1995.

2. The parties to the revision petition may be referred to in the same order as they were arrayed in the Courts below for the sake of convenience.

3. The landlady/petitioner filed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960”) for eviction of the tenants/respondents on the grounds that after the death of the original tenant, the first respondent, there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the second respondent, son of the deceased first respondent in respect of the demised premises, that the petition premises is required as an additional accommodation for running the hotel business of the petitioner, that the petitioner’s husband was running the hotel in the building bearing Door No.6, Arcot Road which was not sufficient for the purpose of the hotel business, that the petition premises situate at about 100 feet from the hotel premises is required as an additional accommodation and that since the respondents committed act of waste in the petition premises, they are liable to be evicted from the s ame.

4. The tenants/respondents have resisted the petition on various grounds pleading inter alia that the second respondent was none else than the son of the first respondent (since deceased), that he was helping his father in running the business of manufacturing soft drinks in the petition premises, that he continued to run the business even after his father, first respondent, that the respondents have not committed any act of waste as alleged in the petition, and that the alleged requirement of the petition premises as an additional accommodation to run the business of the petitioner is not bona fide .

5. The learned Rent Controller having analysed the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on either side and upon hearing the arguments allowed the petition granting two months’ time for the tenants/respondents to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by the fair and decretal orders of the Rent Controller, the respondents/tenants preferred appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority who having heard both sides dismissed the appeal confirming the orders passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the Revision.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued at the outset that even at the inception, the rent control proceedings was not maintainable in the eye of law and that therefore, the decisions rendered by both the Courts below are not sustainable in law and therefore liable to be set aside. He has drawn my attention to the provision under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 in support of his further contention that the claim of the landlady is unsustainable in law for the simple reason that under the said provision of law, she cannot maintain the petition for eviction of the tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement for additional accommodation for running the hotel business because admittedly the hotel premises is situate at Door No.40, Arcot Road in a separate building at a distance of about 100 feet.

7. Similarly he has pointed out the evidence of the landlady as P.W.1 that the premises where she is running the hotel belonged to Perumal Temple Devasthanam, even though there was no rental agreement entered into between her and the said Devasthanam in respect of the said premises. It is therefore urged by the petitioner’s counsel that the premises as described in the petition measuring 7