The landlord's requirement for occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act must be bona fide and in actual need, not a mere whim or desire.

CRP (NPD).No.3992 of 2007 is arisen out of the judgment in RCA.No.252 of 2006 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, under which the order passed in RCOP.No.1900 of 2003 by the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, was challenged. RCOP.No.1900 of 2003 on the file of the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, was filed by the landlord/respondent herein under Section 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the RCOP, against which the landlord preferred an appeal in RCA.No.252 of 2006 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Cause, Chennai). The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority while confirming the findings of the learned Rent Controller in respect of the dismissal of RCOP under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act has allowed the appeal under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, which necessitated the tenant to approach this Court by way of CRP.(NPD).No.3992 of 2007.

2. Under CRP (NPD).No.675 of 2007 the judgment in RCA.No.1382 of 2005 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is challenged. RCA.No.1382 of 2005 had arisen out the order in RCOP.No.1899 of 2003 on the file of the XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which was filed under Section 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller has allowed the RCOP under both the counts and passed an order of eviction giving two months time to vacate and handover vacant possession to the landlord. The appeal RCA.No.1382 of 2005 preferred against the order passed in RCOP.No.1899 of 2003, was dismissed the by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, thereby the orders of the learned Rent Controller was confirmed. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant in RCOP.No.1899 of 2003 has preferred CRP.No.679 of 2007.

3. The landlord has not preferred any revision against the findings of the learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.1900 of 2003, which was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.252 of 2006 in respect of the order of eviction under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act. The tenants in both the RCOPs have been facing an order of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The landlord had filed the RCOP.No.1900 of 2003 and RCOP.No.1899 of 2003 under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) for owners occupation. According to the landlord, he intends to start a pathological laboratory in the petition scheduled premises wherein six shops are situate.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in both the CRPs that the landlord is in possession of shop No.3 and shop No.4 and also shop No.6 and hence the other shops are not required for running the pathological lab and even in Ex.P.1-notice issued by the landlord there was no mention about the requirement of the petition scheduled building for the purpose of owners occupation. Only in Ex.P.4 - notice dated 8. 2003, the landlord has claimed the petition scheduled building and has also revealed about the intention to run the pathological lab and dispensary in the petition scheduled building after evicting all the tenants. The mere fact that there is no mention about the requirement of the landlord for owners occupation in Ex.P.1 alone is not a ground for rejecting the claim of the landlord. Only after issuing Ex.P.4 – notice the landlord has filed both the CRPs to show his bone fide intention. The landlord has also filed two other RCOPs.1835/03 in respect of shop No.4 and RCOP.No.1910 of 2003 in respect of shop No.2 for eviction and got order of eviction against the tenants in shop Nos.4 & 2. So already the landlord has obtained an order of eviction in respect of Shop Nos. 3, 4 and 6. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant in Shop No.1 has also agreed to vacate the shop as soon as the other tenants in the