The judgment established the importance of meeting the specific criteria outlined in the Act for eviction, particularly in relation to 'carrying on business' under Section 10(3)(a)(iii).

1. The tenant, who failed concurrently before the Courts below, in resisting the Rent Control Original Petition in 5 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam, is the revision petitioner.

2. The respondent/landlord, as petitioner, has moved, the Rent Controller for the eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner) on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rents, that the tenant had damaged the building, causing acts of waste and that the building is required for the personal occupation of his son, invoking the provisions of Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) though the Secti ons were not so quoted, as seen from the Rent Control Original Petition.

3. The revision petitioner, denying all the allegations in the Rent Control Original Petition, has opposed the application, that the landlord claiming daily rent at the rate of Rs.100, refused to receive the rent, as agreed, and only for the purpose of evicting the tenant, without any bona fide, the grounds are alleged for the eviction, which deserve non-acceptance.

4. The Rent Controller, after examining P.W.1, who is the son of the landlord, as well examining the revision petitioner as R.W.1, marking Exs. A-1 to A-9 and B-1 to B-4, while evaluating the same according to law, came to the conclusion that as per the admission made by R.W.1 himself, he had committed not only default in payment of rents, but also wilful default; that the premises is required for the personal occupation of P.W.1, who comes within the meaning of ‘a person carrying on business’, as contempl ated under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and that the alleged act of waste is not at all proved, thus, accepting two grounds, invoked by the landlord for the eviction, rejecting one ground, the eviction order came to be passed on 31.7.1998, which was challenged before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 39 of 1999.

5. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, while evaluating the materials available on record and by going through the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, having heard the arguments of either counsel, felt no reason to interfere with the findings of the Rent Controller. Thus, satisfying himself, the Rent Controller has not committed any error offending any provisions of the law, either on facts or otherwise, unable to take a different view, the Appellate Authority confirmed the eviction order, by dismissing the R.C.A., as per the judgment dated 19.2.2003, which is challenged in this revision.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in order to relieve from the penalty visited upon the tenant, by way of an order of eviction, would contend that, even as per the admission made by P.W.1, there is no default, much less wilful default in payment of rent and this being the position, the order passed by the Rent Controller, ordering eviction, as if the tenant had committed wilful default, should go. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that admitte dly, P.W.1, for whom the petition mentioned premises is required, is not carrying on any business, as contemplated under the Act and the so-called arrangements, said to have been made by him, to commence the business, also will not attract the wordings ‘carrying on business’ and unfortunately, these facts were overlooked not only by the Rent Controller but also by the Appellate Authority, who was expected to correct the mistake and in this view, this Court should come to the aid of the tenant to correct the same, thereby to set aside the order of eviction slapped under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

7. Opposing the above submissions and supporting the reasons assigned by the Courts below, for ordering eviction, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would contend that as per the admission made by the tenant, that too, whe