Requirement shown by the landlady bonafide.

The landlord is the petitioner herein. The landlady filed a petition for eviction against the tenant under Sec.l0(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The case of the landlady is as under: She purchased the petition premises from one Krishnamurthy under a registered sale deed dated 26. 1986. The petition premises is having three Door numbers namely 7, 8 and 9. For Door No.7 the monthly rent isRs.100 and for Door Nos.8 and 9 the monthly rent is Rs.100. The tenant is using the entire premises as a godown. The husband of the landlady is an unemployed person. The landlady is looking after her household work. Both the husband and wife now desire to start a mess in the petition premises. They are having sufficient means to start the mess. The landlady is not having any other premises of her own in the same town. Hence the landlady required the petition premises for conducting a mess under Sec.l0 (3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The landlady sent a notice to the tenant on 11. 1986, calling upon the tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession. The tenant sent a reply dated 111. 1986 refusing to vacate the premises.

2. The case of the tenant is as under:

The respondent herein alone is not a tenant in respect of the petition premises. According to the tenant he is a partner in the partnership concern with the other partner and the firm is the tenant in the petition premises. Therefore without impleading the other partners, the petition is not maintainable. The husband of the landlady is doing pawnbroker business. The landlady is having several premises of her own in the same town and it is not correct to state that the husband of the landlady is an unemployed person. Since the tenant refused to pay higher rent as demanded by the landlady she came forward with the present revision petition. The landlady and her husband are not having any previous experience in conducting the mess. Therefore the requirement of the petition premises by the landlady is not bona fide. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. The husband of the landlady was examined as P.W.I. The tenant was examined as R.W.I. The landlady filed 3 documents. The tenant filed 9 documents. Considering the above facts the rent controller came to conclusion that the reauire-ment of the landlady under Sec. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is bona fide. Accordingly the Rent Controller ordered eviction. On appeal the Rent Control Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller, allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction. It is against this order the landlady has filed this revision before this Court.

.4. The learned counsel appearing for the landlady/ petitioner herein submitted as under:

.The rent control appellate authority was not correct in reversing the well considered order of the rent controller. For starting a mess to feed about 10 people no prior experience is necessary. So also for starting a mess of this nature permission also need not be obtained from the Municipality. To starts mess of this nature a capital of Rs.1,000 to Rs.2,000 would be sufficient. The landlady is having sufficient funds to start the mess. In conducting the mess no employees are necessary. Both the petitioner and her husband can conduct the mess by themselves. The Rent Control Appellate Authority pointed out that in order to start the mess the landlady has not taken any steps to buy vessels and other materials. But the fact remains that these small articles can be purchased at any time after possession is obtained from the tenant. Therefore on this score it cannot be said that no step was taken in furtherance of starting of the mess. The husband of the landlady is an unemployed person and in order to provide employment to her husband the landlady is desirous of starting the mess. The landlady is not having any other premises of her own in the same town. It was therefore pleaded that the order passed by the Rent Control Appellat