On the ground of requirement of premises for non-residential purposes eviction cannot be sought.

1. The landlords/petitioners aggrieved against the order in appeal, have filed the above revision.

2. The petitioners filed R.C.O.P.No.37 of 1989 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Erode for eviction of the respondents/tenants under Section 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. According to the petitioners, the premises in question originally belonged to one Mrs.V.K. Nagarathinammal and the petitioners purchased the entire premises under two sale deeds dated 14. 1989. The first respondent was a tenant under the petitioners vendor. She took the premises for the purpose of running textile business. It is claimed by the petitioners that the tenancy was attorned by the first respondent and so she has become the tenant under the petitioners.

3. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is doing business in textiles for the past 12 years under the name and style of Banu Radha Textiles in a rented premises in Door No.4 Kamaraj Street, Erode. The second petitioner is also doing business in textiles under the name and style of Sivan Textiles in a rented building at Door No.4 Kamaraj Street, Erode. As the owner of the said premises was insisting to vacate the same, the petitioners require the premises in question for their own occupation. According to them, there are having no other premises of their own.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that without the knowledge and consent of the petitioners, the first respondent has sublet the rear portion of the premises in favour of the second respondent and one Mariammal, wife of Samiappa Mudaliar and parted with possession of the same for a fixed rent. It is their further case that the said Mariammal just prior to the legal notice dated 6. 1989 left without the consent of the first petitioner, putting her daughter-in-law, Yogambal, the third respondent, in possession and thereby the second and third respondents have been residing therein. On that ground the petitioners are seeking eviction of the respondents. Though the petitioners have come forward with the other ground under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act, no argument was advanced before me, and so I am not dealing with the same.

5. The first respondent/tenant filed a counter and contested the petition. According to the first respondent/tenant, the vendor of the petitioners was owning number of buildings at Erode Town and only with a view to evict the tenant, the vendor of the petitioners want to sell the property for a huge profits. She denied the fact that the landlord of the petitioners are insisting to vacate the premises occupied by the petitioners and that the petitioners are not having any other premises in Erode Town. Regarding subletting, the tenant has denied the same. According to her, she is in control of the entire premises and she has not sublet any portion of the building. There is no such person Mariammal. Angappan is none other than the sisters husband of the first respondent. According to the first respondent, they are taking care of the goods in the shop at night. On that basis the first respondent/tenant prayed for dismissal of the petition. The first respondent filed additional counter stating that each of the petitioners purchased separate and specific property under two separate registered sale deeds. They are neither co-owners nor joint owners and one is not having any right, title or interest over the property of the other. On that basis the first respondent has raised an objection that the petition filed by the petitioners jointly cannot be maintained.

6. The Rent Controller found that the premises in question was used for both residential and non-residential purposes, that the requirements of the premises by the petitioners for their own occupation is a bona fide one and that the first respondent has sublet the premises to the respondents 2 and 3. One the basis of the abovesaid findin