Buildings in question are two different buildings.

1. The tenants/petitioners who suffered an order of eviction before the appellate authority have filed the above revision.

.2. The respondents/landlords filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No. 49 of 1984 for eviction of the premises in question against the petitioners/tenants on the file of the learned Rent Controller/Tiruchirappalli under Sections 10(3)(c) and 1 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. Since, before this Court, arguments were made only with respect to the correctness of the order passed on the basis of the requirement of the premises in question for the additional accommodation, I am not dealing with the other issue.

3. According to the respondents, the respondent in the R.C.O.P. are in possession and enjoyment of the building bearing door No.18-C, which is a portion of the entire building bearing door No. 18, and the petitioners herein/tenant in the R.C.O.P. has been in possession and enjoyment of the building bearing door No. 18. The case of the respondents is that the family of the landlord consists of 6 members and they find it difficult to reside in door No. 18-C and the existing accommodation is hardly sufficient and so they require the premises in question which is a portion of the entire property as additional accommodation. The tenant in the R.C.O.P. has resisted the eviction petition on the ground that the petition is not maintainable under Section 10(3)(c) of the said Act, as the building which is in occupation of the tenant and that of the landlord are different buildings. Even on merits, the tenant disputed about the bonafide intention of the landlord. The Rent Controller appointed an Advocate- Commissioner and on the basis of his report factually found that the buildings are two different buildings and so the petition is not maintainable under Section 10(3)(c) of the said Act. He also went into the merits regarding the bonafide intention of the landlord and found that the intention is not bonafide one. Even with respect to the relative hardship, which may be caused to the tenant by granting eviction would outweigh the advantage to the landlord. Aggrieved against the same, the respondents who have been impleaded as legal heirs of the original petitioner in the R.C.O.P., after his death, have filed appeal in R.C.A.No. 156 of 1989 on the file of the Appellate Authority/Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the tenants/petitioners have filed the above Revision.

.4. The only point argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the building sought to be evicted is a different building other than one which is in occupation of the respondents and so the eviction petition filed by the landlords cannot be maintained under Section 10(3)(C) of the said Act. In support of his submission the learned counsel has relied on the evidence of P.W.1 himself and the report of the Commissioner.

5. In answering to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that merely because the single wall which is dividing the buildings, and merely because two different door numbers have been given, it cannot be said that they are two different buildings, and so the petition filed by them is maintainable.

6. It is not in dispute that the building which is in occupation of the landlords is bearing door No. 18-C and the building which is in occupation of the tenants is bearing door No.

18. Admittedly, there is a dividing wall in between the buildings, which divides the property. Though in the eviction petition it is stated that the building is bearing door No. 18- C, which is a portion of the entire building, P.W. 1, the second petitioner in the R.C.O.P has stated in his chief-examination that the buildings bearing door No. 18 and 18-C are separate building