.1. The first respondent in this revision is the landlord/petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.704 of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller (14th Small Causes Court) Madras. The second respondent in this revision is the first respondent/tenant in the above referred to proceedings. The first petitioner in this revision was arrayed in that proceedings as the 2nd respondent /unauthorised sub-tenant under the first respondent. On the first respondents counter in that proceedings, the 2nd petitioner herein also came to be impleaded as the 3rd respondent, in the category of an unauthorised sub-tenant under the 1st respondent. Respondents 3 and 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent herein. Eviction of the respondents in the rent control petition was sought for on two grounds namely, owners occupation of a non-residential building falling under section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and sub-letting falling under section 10(2) (a) (ii) of the said Act. Another ground namely, putting the building to a different user was also put forward before the rent controller. The rent controller found that there were sub-letting and different user. On the ground of owners occupation also, the finding went in favour of the landlord. All the respondents in the rent control petition appealed before the appellate authority, Madras in R.C.A.No.610 of 1993. The appellate authority, on the question of sub-letting found against the landlord. Likewise on the issue of different user also, the finding went against the landlord. However the appellate authority concurred with the rent controller on the issue of owners occupation and affirmed the order of eviction. This revision is before this Court at the instance of the 2nd and the 3rd respondents before the rent controller, who were added in that proceedings only as unauthorised sub-tenants, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order of the authorities below.

.2. I heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.K. Alagirisamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent represented by his legal representatives. Even at the outset, Mr.K. Alagirisamy, learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent/landlord made it very clear that though the appellate authority reversed the finding on the ground of sub-letting and different user, yet he is not going to advance arguments on the finding of the appellate authority on those issues, which went against the landlord and that he would be advancing arguments only to sustain the finding of the appellate authority on the issue of owners occupation. Besides that, Mr.K. Alagirisamy, learned senior counsel also raised a preliminary point on the maintainability of the C.R.P. before this Court at the instance of the petitioners in this petition. Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel on the point of maintainability contended that the petitioners are the aggrieved persons and they having been impleaded in the rent control proceedings, have every right to file a revision before this court questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order of eviction passed against them. On merits, the learned senior counsel would contend that the requirement of the landlord for owners occupation is not established at all and in any event, the requirement does not appear to be bona fide in the back drop of several earlier proceedings initiated by the landlord to evict the tenant and failing in the same. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners also argued that the materials placed before the court in support of the contention that the landlords son is carrying on business are far from convincing and no person of ordinary prudence would act on the same to pass an order of eviction against the tenant. Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel contended that inasmuch as the landlord is now in a portion of the very same tenanted premises, the app