A landlord who is a co-owner of a non-residential building is disentitled from filing an eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, as he is regarded as occupying his own non-residential building.

.1. Tenant in R.C.OLP. No.8 of 1989, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Erode, is the revision petitioner.

2. Respondent, landlord of the building, filed the petition for eviction on the ground that he needs the schedule premises for his own occupation. In his eviction petition, it is said that he is carrying on wholesale and retail business in hardware and paints under the name and style Karpal Steel Agencies as sole proprietor in a rented premises at Door No. 134, Valayalkara Street, Erode Town from 1963. It is also said that he was also having a godown for storing articles in another rented premises in Door No. 136 in the same Street. His landlord, Yusuf, filed a petition for eviction, and the same was ordered. It is further said that the petitioner (landlord) vacated the rented godown and shifted it to No.7, Chokkanatha Gounder Street, Fort, Erode-1. It is said that the landlord of door No. 134 were harassing the petitioner to vacate the rented premises, and number of petitions were filed against him. They filed R.C.O.P. No. 93 of 1979 in the District Munsif s Court, Erode, and the same was allowed. Petitioner (N. Vasudevan) filed C.M.A. No.19 of 1981, on the file of Sub Court, Erode and the same was allowed. Landlords filed C.R.P. No.976 of 1982 before this Court. The Order passed by the Rent Controller was restored. Though an application for Special Leave was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court, leave was not granted, and the order of eviction became final, and time was granted till 33. 1989 to surrender vacant possession of the premises. In obedience to the Order of the Honourable Supreme Court, the petitioner (landlord in the present revision) handed over possession of the building to his landlords.

.3. The schedule premises in one room in a row of shops. There are three shoprooms under the same roof, and they have been leased out to the respondent and other tenants. In this case, the subject matter of the proceeding is Door No.20-A and the tenant is paying a monthly rent of Rs.450. It has got a plinth area of 13 ft. x 15 ft. Since the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises by the Honourable Supreme Court, he needs all these shoprooms for his own occupation. It is said that he does not own any other shop building to carry on his hardware and paint business. All the three shoprooms are facing Brough Road, which is the main road leading from Erode Town to Railway Station and other Bazaar roads. The buildings are also situate opposite to the newly constructed Erode Municipal Shopping Complex and Commercial Complex known as Gani Market. Petitioner/landlord proposes to utilise Door No.20-A for dealing in bolts, nuts, screws and other articles and also use it as Office, and Door No.20-B will be used for dealing in paints, snowcem and other interior decoration materials. It is also said that the tenant is a wilful defaulter in payment of rent, and he was not regular in paying the rents. For the above reasons, respondent herein (landlord) filed the eviction petition.

4. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner herein (tenant), he disputed the bona fides of the landlord. It is said that the portion occupied by the revision petitioner is a very small area and the same is unsuitable for carrying on handware business. It is said that if he is evicted from the demised premises, he will put to hardship, and he will become a bankrupt.

5. The Rent Controller, after taking evidence, allowed the eviction petition. Tenant was given one months time to surrender vacant possession. Rent Controller found that the claim of the landlord is bona fide and that he is in urgent need of the schedule premises for his own occupation. The landlord has also filed eviction petitions against other tenants who are occupying other portions of the main building, and those petitions were also allowed.

6. Aggrieved by the Order, tenant filed RCA No.34 of 1989, on the file of Second Additional Sub Jud