.1. The landlord who succeeded before the Rent Controller and failed before the Appellate Authority, is the petitioner. The petitioner is a registered firm and is a lessee of the building bearing Door No.196, Broadway, Madras-1, from one K.T.M.S.Ahmed. The said building consists of ground floor, first and second floors. The petitioner was running a lodging and boarding in the entire first and second floors with a restaurant on the ground floor. Due to some labour problems, the petitioner discontinued the running of the restaurant. Thereafter the first respondent took the southern portion of the ground floor of the premises on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.725. It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant time of leasing out the said portion, the petitioner was running a restaurant. The restaurant was closed due to labour problem. It is the case of the petitioner-landlord that there was a need to restart a restaurant in the premises to cater to the needs of the inmates of the lodging house and due to non-availability of the restaurant, the volume of business in the lodging house had decreased. To reopen the restaurant, the petitioner applied on 111. 1982 to the Commissioner of Police to grant no objection certificate. But the Inspector of Police, Muthialpet, seems to have directed the petitioner to take action to vacate the tenants in occupation of the premises, to grant permission to start restaurant. So, on that basis it is stated that the petitioner is in dire need of the premises in the occupation of the tenant to start a restaurant. The petitioner/landlord sent a notice on 12. 1983 to the tenant/first respondent requesting to vacate the premises. But the first respondent sent a reply rejecting the said request. Regarding the hardship, it is the case of the petitioner that the hardship to the tenant will not outweigh the advantage of the landlord, as the respondent/tenant is using the premises only for storing the goods, and the respondent can easily find out alternate and suitable premises elsewhere for storing the goods. It is stated that the respondent is having another godown at No.2 Appu Maistry Street. On the basis of the abovesaid pleadings, the petitioner/landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No.3857 of 1983 on the file of Small Causes Court, Madras under Sec.10 (3) (c) of Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973.

.2. The first respondent firm/tenant contested the petition by filing a counter affidavit. The other respondents who are partners, filed separate counter statements. According to the respondent Nos.2 to 11 and 13 to 15, respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 and 12 are not partners of the first respondent firm. The case of the respondents is that the landlord is in occupation of a large portion of the building and they can use a portion of it for the purpose of restaurant, if their claim is genuine. The respondents denied the averment regarding the need of the restaurant as stated by the petitioner/landlord. Regarding the hardship, the respondents have come forward with a case that the premises in question is the only place which is accessible to lorry traffic which the respondents have to use for transporting goods. It is the further case of the respondents that the petition under Sec.10 (3) (c) is not maintainable as the petitioner/landlord is not in occupation of any portion in the ground floor which is a separate building.

3. The Rent Controller after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence found that the need of the landlord is only on the basis of bona fide intention, and regarding the hardship, the Rent Controller found that the hardship to the tenant will not out weigh the advantage of the landlord. On the basis of the said findings, the Rent Controller allowed the petition. Aggrieved against the same, the respondents filed appeal in R.C.A.No.392 of 1987 on the file of the Appellate Authority (City Civil Court, Madras). The Appellate Authority also after elaborately considering th