Petition of eviction filed u/s 10 (3) (c) not maintainable.

Respondents 2 and 3 in R.C.O.P. No.3 of 1990, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Pollachi, are revision petitioners.

.2. One V.Balasubramnaiam, father of respondents 1 to 6 herein, filed the said eviction petition under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the following allegations: The landlords are owning a mill for deshelling groundnut. It is their family business. The existing place is quite insufficient for their business and, therefore, the landlord has to construct godowns and also I drying yards petition mentioned premises alone is I suitable place for locating the same, since it lies just adjacent to the petitioner’s business place. Hence, the landlords require the petition mentioned building as additional accommodation for their business. They have to demolish and reconstruct the petitioned premises to make it suitable as additional accommodation for their business. It is further said that originally the landlord planned to construct residential accommodation in the petition mentioned premises. But, since the extension of business is mote important, he was very much in need of the premises as additional accommodation for business by demolition and reconstruction.

3. Petitioners herein filed a detailed counter wherein they took a contention mat the landlords are not entitled to get possession in view of the various Statutes which enable them to purchase the site. It is further said that they have got a right of pre-emption. It is also said that they effected improvements. They also took a contention that a petition under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act is not maintainable since the schedule premises is an independent structure unconnected with the building occupied by the landlords. A further contention was also taken that if it is a case of additional accommodation, it is for the personal use of the landlords. Immediately after the eviction petition was filed, landlord died, and the ground of personal use cannot be inherited by his legal representatives. They also said that the lie and location of the property is also such mat it cannot be used as additional accommodation. It is their case that on the ground level, there are two bunks and underneath, there is a petrol tank. If that be so, from the very nature, it cannot, be made use of by the landlords along with the rest of the building in their possession. They also said that for the business run by the landlords, the schedule premises is not suitable. The bona fide was, therefore, disputed.

.4. Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority decided against the tenants on all the grounds. During, the course of trial, landlords gave up their claim under Sec.l4(l)(b). Their claim in the eviction petition was under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Act. They said mat the need of the premises is only as an additional accommodation, and if their bona fides are proved, it is for them to decide as to how they could make use of the same and, therefore, there is no relevance in adding one more Section to the eviction petition under Sec.4(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act.

5. Rent Controller found that the landlords are entitled to get eviction under Sec.l0(3)(c) of the Act. In paragraph 13 of the Order, the Rent Controller held that since the schedule premises and the portion occupied by the landlords belong to the same owner, and the schedule premises is also situated adjacent to the residential building, that will be sufficient to invoke the provisions of Sec.10(3)(c). The Rent Controller followed the decision reported in MI s.Children’s Choice represented by its Partner Mr.Lakshmichand Shamjee v. G.K.Adiseshiah and another, (1982)1 M.L.J. 411, for the said purpose. He further came to the conclusion that the personal use referred to in the eviction petition should not be strictly considered. He found that the right is also hereditable one. All the other contentions regarding, pre-emption and benefits claimed under statutes by th