Receipt of rent from second petitioner does not mean that he was recognised as tenant.

The respondents in the eviction petition are the revision petitioners. Their eviction was sought on the ground of owner’s occupation and unauthorised sub-letting.

2. The case of the respondent herein as set out in the petition in R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1995 before the Rent Controller, Nagapattinam, was as follows.

.3. The building and the premises referred to in the petition belonged to the respondent/landlady, she having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 15. 1994 from one Balkis Nachiar and others. The first revision petitioner was in occupation of the building as a tenant under the previous owners and after the purchase by the respondent, he attorned to the respondent and entered into an oral tenancy agreement agreeing to pay at the rate of Rs.125 per month as rent, the rent arrangement being according to the English calendar month. The respondent got married in November, 1993. Her husband who was a native of Chidambaram, prior to the marriage was employed in a cycle dealer shop at Chidambaram and thereafter he was employed in Saudi Arabia. After his marriage he was permanently, staying with the respondent at Manjakollai. He was employed as Manager in J.S. Traders, a firm in the adjacent building, run by a third party. He had gained experience in business and he desired to start his own business, for which he required the petition mentioned premises. Neither the respondent nor her husband was in occupation of any other nonresidential building of her/his own within the limits of Nagapattinam and the petition mentioned premises was required by them bona fide for the purpose of the business to be started. The first revision petitioner was informed about the intention of the respondent’s husband to start a business. Though he promised to vacate, he did not keep his promise. A notice was issued by the respondent to the revision petitioners on 25. 1995. There was a reply sent by the revision petitioners on 6. 1995 containing false allegations. The respondent did not demand enhanced rent. Again, the first revision petitioner had sub-let the building to the second revision petitioner without the consent in writing of the respondent. The second revision petitioner was running his business under the name and style of ‘Vaigai Enterprises’ in the petition mentioned premises. The revision petitioners were therefore liable to be evicted on the ground of unauthorised sub-letting.

.4. The second revision petitioner filed a counter. Which was adopted by the first revision petitioner, contending inter alia as follows:

The requirement of the premises of the respondent’s husband was not bona fide, that the case of sub-letting was not true, that the petition for eviction had been filed only for the purpose of hiking the rent, that the first revision petitioner was the son of the second revision petitioner and that the licence for the shop stood in the name of the second revision petitioner and also the first revision petitioner. Both the petitioners were looking after the business and there was no sub-letting at all. The respondent’s husband owned the business J.S.Traders in the adjacent premises and it was not true to say that he was only a Manager. The requirement for owner’s occupation for starting a new business by the respondent’s husband was an invented reason and no steps had been taken by the respondent’s husband for starting any new business. The eviction partition was liable to be dismissed.

.5. The learned Rent Controller found that there was no sub-letting and that the respondent had not established that her husband was going to start a new business for Which the premises was required. By his order dated 22. 1996, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition.

6. However, on appeal in R.C.A.No.12 of 1996 by the respondent, the Appellate Authority, Nagapattinam, set aside the order of the Rent Controller, allowed the rent control appeal and ordered eviction. Aggrieved the present revision petition has been file