The judgment establishes the landlord's presumption of bona fide requirement and the right to choose a building for occupation, along with considering the condition of the building and the landlord's financial means.

The landlord is the revision petitioner herein. This Civil Revision Petition has arisen out of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as the Act) for eviction of the respondent/tenant from the property belonging to the petitioner/landlord under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Act.

2. The petition mentioned premises is a non residential one and the landlord had purchased the same from her predecessors through their Power Agent namely E.Kailasam by a registered sale deed dated 35. 2004. The respondent is the tenant even with the predecessors of the petitioner from 22. 1990 and attorned his tenancy to the petitioner from 6. 2004.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she has been carrying on tailoring business under the name and style of Venus Tailors in a rental building on a monthly rent of Rs.1200/-in the same area and for the purpose of accommodating her staff and to keep the thread stock she had taken another building on a monthly rent of Rs.1800/- and in all, she has been paying a sum of Rs.3000/- p.m. as rent and to develop her business and to augment her income, she need the petition mentioned premises.

Further the petition mentioned premises is more than 70 years old and it is in a dilapidated condition and therefore, she wants to demolish the premises in question and reconstruct it. She has stated that she has got sufficient means and obtained necessary plan from the Municipality concerned for putting up a new construction.

4. The trial court upheld the requirements of the landlord and passed an order of eviction on two grounds under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Act, which was reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority at the instance of the tenant. The Rent Control Appellate Authority held that there was no bona fide requirement for her own occupation to carry on the tailoring business and the case for demolition and reconstruction was not made out. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord.

5. Though the eviction was sought for on the ground of willful default, but the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not pressing the said ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove that she is running the tailoring business in a rental building without considering the admission made by the respondent/tenant that the landlord is running the business in a rental premises which situate four shops ahead of the petition premises. The Rent Controller has referred to the said admission made by the respondent in his cross examination that the landlord is running the tailoring business in a rented shop lying in the same street and the extent is also very small. The landlord filed Ex.P10 cards to show that she is carrying on tailoring business and it is not the case of the respondent that it does not relate to the said premises. Even in the petition filed by the landlord for eviction, her address is given as Venus Tailors at Door No.84, South Mada Street, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District which is not her own building. This aspect has not been disputed by the respondent.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that she does not own any non residential building than the petition premises. In her evidence she has only stated that she owns a residential building in KTC Nagar, which cannot be said that it is suitable for her to run the tailoring business.

7. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is running her tailoring business in a rented premises and she does not have any other non residential premises available within the city to satisfy her requirement. The request of the landlord, who is already engaged in a commercial activities but in a rental building cannot be said to be not acting bona fide when she