Revision against order of appellate authority dismissed.

The civil revision petition is against the order dated 112. 1989 in R.C.A.No.34 of 1988, on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, reversing the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P. No.3668 of 1985, dated 112. 1987, on the file of the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

2. The eviction petition wasfiled under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (own occupation). The landlord’s petition was ordered by the Rent Controller. However, the appellate authority has dismissed the same. Hence the landlord has filed the civil revision petition in this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.N. Krishnamitra urged before me that the appellate authority ought to have confirmed the order of eviction because it has been proved that the petitioners are carrying on business in a rented building, namely, No.86, Sembudoss Street, Madras-1 under the name and style of A.A. Sha Electricals, and they purchased the petition premises on 14. 1985. After the purchase they have also intimated the tenant about their purchase. Accepting the purchase, the respondent has been paying the rent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the petitioners proved that they were carrying on business in a rented premises, and they were not owning any other building, the order of eviction ought to have been confirmed by the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited a decision reported in Embemmanar v. Raghava, (1984)2 M.L.J. 383 and contended that once it was proved that no other building was owned by the petitioners and the business was carried on in a rented premises, and if the want is not on account of any oblique motive, then the bona fide must be presumed. In the said case in para 7 of the judgment, it is stated as follows:

“It is not as if that for the purpose of securing an order for eviction under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the landlord has to establish that the premises where he is carrying on business is insufficient or that the premises in respect of which an order for eviction is sought for is in a better business locality or that he has been threatened by his landlord to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises in his occupation as a tenant. There is also no need, according to Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, that the landlord should show any expansion in his business before he can seek an order for eviction under that section. As pointed out earlier, the Rent Controller has to be satisfied that the claim is bona fide..”

Even though the learned Judge has held that there is no necessity to prove certain other factors, yet the learned judge has held the rent controller must be satisfied that the claim is bona fide..

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr.V.R. Gopalan has submitted that there is no bona fide in the claim of the petitioners. He has stated that the following circumstances which have been proved to exist would definitely negative the circumstances of bona fide.. There was no threat from the landlord of the present building, wherein the petitioners are carrying on business. The petitioners want to carry on electrical business. Such business is mainly carried on in Sembudoss Street and the said business is flourishing in the said street only. The accommodation available in the present building is much more than compared to the building in question. Sembudoss Street is also broader and wider compared to Baker Street which is only 15 ft. wide. It is also one way. He contended that in the George Town area each street is having specialised business. Baker Street is occupied mainly by steel trunk box sellers. It is not a street where electrical goods business is carried on. R.W. 1 who spoke about these facts has not been cross-examined.

5. In para 7 of the order of the appellate authority, these facts have been set out by him. Further in the cross-examination P.W.1 has admitted the fol