The revision petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.1095 to 1097 of 2004 is the landlord who filed the petitions R.C.O.P.Nos.1156, 1158 and 1157 of 2001 on the file of XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai against the respondents/tenants under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of TN Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

2.The learned Rent Controller viz., XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai has passed orders in R.C.O.P.Nos.1156, 1158 and 1157 of 2001 on 211. 2002 dismissing the petitions filed by the revision petitioner/landlord with costs.

3.The revision petitioner/landlord has filed R.C.A.Nos.189, 191 and 190 of 2003 before the learned Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai as against the orders passed in R.C.O.P.Nos.1156, 1158 and 1157 of 2001 by the learned Rent Controller viz., XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and the learned Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai has dismissed the aforesaid three R.C.As without costs, confirming the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller viz., XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

4.Aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A.Nos.189, 191, 190 of 2003 dated 13.02.2004, the landlord/petitioner has filed these three revisions viz., C.R.P.Nos.1095 to 1097 of 2004 before this Court.

C.R.P.No.1095 of 2004:-

5.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord/petitioner, both the learned Rent Controller viz., XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and the Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai ought to have seen that the RCOP petition has been filed for the eviction of the contiguous shops No.3 to 6 in ground floor of the premises No.20, Gajapathylala Street, Triplicane, Chennai occupied by the respondent and other tenants for the purpose of carrying on business by the second son of the revision petitioner/landlord and that the revision petitioner/landlords son is working temporarily as Khalasi in Railways and that his son does not wish to continue in the job, which has no prospects and that he has experience in dealing with the electrical goods because of his employment in Electrical Department and that his son will resign the job on the respondent vacating the portion and carry on the business and this fact was not taken note of by both the authorities and that the revision petitioner/landlord who worked in the Electrical Department as Shop Superintendent will be assisting his son in carrying on the business and thus the revision petitioner requires the petition premises bonafide. It is the further stand of the revision petitioner/landlord/petitioner is that the authorities below have ignored the P.W.1s evidence in regard to the preparation for doing a business and very fact that the revision petitioner/landlords son is ready to resign his temporary job and commence business itself, is a first step taken in the right direction to carry on the business.

6.Advancing arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the authorities below ought to have seen that the shops No.1, 2 and 7 are not vacant in the real sense and that the said shops are very small one compared to other shops and that they are not contiguous and further that the respondent/tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord and it is for the revision petitioner/landlord /petitioner to select which portion will be convenient for his occupation.

7.The revision petitioner/landlord/petitioner in the petition R.C.O.P.No.1156 of 2001 has inter alia specifically averred that he has two sons J.Hariharan and J.Kirupakaran, both of them married and living with him and that his second son, Kriupakaran got married in the year 2000 and presently working as semiskilled in the Electrical Department of the Southern Railway Perambur Works and that his salary is very meagre and on marriage he is