The tenants are the petitioners in all these revisions. The first respondent is the husband of the second respondent. The respondents are the owners of the premises bearing door No.290, Bharathi Salai, Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Madras-5. The petition for eviction was filed against all these tenants on the ground of owner’s occupation under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In so far as the tenants in C.R.P.Nos.2729 and 395 of 1991 are concerned, the eviction petitions were also filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Act. The petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.2729 of 1989 and 395 of 1991 are the joint tenants under the respondents herein for the entire premises except three shops in the front portion of the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.429 of 1991 is in occupation of one shop in the front portion of the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.300. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.1130 of 1991 is in occupation of one shop in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.175.

.2. In so far as the petition for eviction filed under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is concerned, the landlord filed one single petition against all the tenants. The case of the landlords is as under: The respondents herein purchased the petition premises under a sale deed dated 30.4.1984. Soon after the execution of the sale deed, this fact was intimated to the tenants by the present landlords as well as by the prior owners. Some of the tenants attorned their tenancy in favour of the present landlords. The landlords are carrying on medical shop business at No.274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Madras-5, which is a rented building. They are now under the threat of eviction since their landlord filed a petition for eviction against them on the ground of additional accommodation. The first respondent herein is a chemist in Simpson & Co., and he has got wide experience in dealing with medicines. The landlords wanted to carry on their business in medicines in a big way, in the entire petition premises consisting of only ground and the first floor. The landlords are not in occupation of any other non-residential building of their own in the city of Madras. The landlords sent notices to the tenants on 28. 1984 calling upon them to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises. The petitioners in C.R.P.No.2729 of 1989 evaded the service of notice. Some of the tenants sent their replies on 9. 1984 and on 19. 1984 expressing their refusal to vacate the premises.

.3. The case of the tenants is as under:

.The petition for eviction is not maintainable since the business at No.274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane is being carried on by Hindu undivided family, in which the first respondent is the kartha. The landlords are not carrying on any business of their own individually. There are four different portions let out separately to four different tenants. Each portion is a building and therefore the landlord cannot file a single petition for eviction for his own occupation against all the tenants. The landlords failed to prove their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act in the case of each one of the tenants. The landlords are now carrying on their business at No.274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, in a portion admeasuring about 100 sq.ft. The petition premises on the whole admeasuring about 4,000 sq.ft. Hence, the entire petition premises may not be necessary for the landlords to carry on their small medical shop. The first petitioner in the eviction petition is employed in Simpson & Co. It is not known whether he is carrying on his business in medicines. It was therefore submitted that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlords in requiring the petition premises under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

4. Mariappan examined himself as P.W.I. Jacob Ramania