A landlord cannot seek eviction on the ground of arrears of rent when he is holding an excessive advance from the tenant.

1. Both these revisions arise under Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control, Act, Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties are the same. The defeated tenant is the revision petitioner in both cases and landlord is the respondent. The parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord for purpose of the judgment.

2. In C.R.P. No. 370 of 1999 eviction was sought on the ground of own occupation/additional accommodation under sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and, 10(3)(a) of the Act. The other revision petition is against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on the ground of wilful default.

.3. One Essakkimuthu Konar filed R.C.O.P. No. 52 of 1994 under sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Act. He died pending proceedings and his son, the respondent herein came on record as the second petitioner in the eviction proceedings. The averments in the petition for eviction are as follows:

.Essakkimuthu Konar was suffering from diabetes. He had a set back in business. He wanted to change the line of business, He wanted to start a furniture mart. Door No.4 was already in his possession . Door No.5 which is the property subject matter of the proceedings, is in the occupation of the petitioner/tenant. Only a wall separates the two door numbers. It is a single building and has been subdivided into two properties with two different door numbers. Door No.4 was not sufficient to run the business of furniture mart.

.4. The tenant resisted the proceedings contending inter alia that the requirement for own accommodation/additional accommodation was not bona fide. With a view to get more rent the present eviction proceedings had been initiated. Essakkimuthu Konar was not running any shop in door No.4. In February, 1994 the very same building was let out to one S.M.Steel House. He never demanded to surrender vacant possession. The tenant had paid an advance of Rs.5, 000. The Landlord attempted to throw him out by other means necessitating the filing of a suit for injunction in C.R.P. No. 274 of 1994 and he also obtained injunction and the suit was dismissed on the landlord making an endorsement that he would not throw out the tenant except by due process of law. The Landlord should have asked for the first floor portion for additional accommodation.

5. The Learned Rent Controller accepted the case of the landlord and ordered eviction. The tenants appeal in R.C.A. No. 41 of 1996 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, viz, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thirunelvelli. Against the order in the R.C.A. the present revision has been filed.

6. Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner made the following submissions:

.(1) This is a case where 10(3)(a)(iii) will not apply and 10(3)(c) alone will apply and if it is 10(3)(c) it must be shown that the landlord is carrying on business and in the instant case it has not been shown that the landlord was carrying on business on the date of the eviction petition.

(2) Both the authorities below have not considered the relative hardship that would be caused to the tenant. On this point the learned Counsel relied on the following decisions:

.(a) Shir Balaganesan Metals v. N.N. Shanmugham Chetty and others, AIR 1987 SC 1668; (b) M/s. Nilgiri Dairy Farm v. Manoharan, 1978 (I) MLJ 357; (c) M/s Associated Traders v. T.N.A. Abdul Hameed, 1983 (96) LW 566 and (d) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. B. Saravanan and 7 others, 1997 (2) LW 81.

.7. Mr. Peppin Fernando, learned counsel for the landlord, submitted that there is abundant material to show that the landlord was carrying on business on the date of the petition and in any event, he had taken at least one step in this direction. He had procured invoices for furniture from various agencies and the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court have clearly held that a significant step for carrying on business would be enough to entitle the landlord