The central legal point established is that under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the landlord's ownership and occupation of non-residential premises, as well as the relative hardship faced, are crucial factors in determining the bona fide requirement for eviction.

1. The revision petitioner is the landlord, who had preferred a petition in R.C.O.P.No.l of 1994 before the learned Rent Controller, Karaikal, seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises, namely, a non-residential building bearing Municipal Door No.5l/1, Vayaikarai Street, Karaikal, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the purpose of running a finance company under the name and style of "Thangasamy Finance" in the same place.

1.2 The above said eviction proceedings were resisted by the respondent-tenant on the ground that the petitioner-landlord is owning, four shops and therefore, he is not entitled to evict the respondent-tenant under Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, which reads as follows:

Section 10(3)(a) of the Act:-

A landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building :-

(i)

(ii)

(iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord or his son is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or his son is carrying on, a non-residential building of his own in the Commune concerned.

1.3 The learned Rent Controller, without appreciating the contention of the revision petitioner-landlord that even though he is owning four non-residential buildings, among which he is in occupation of only one building, the other three including the petition premises are rented out to the third parties and hence, he seeks to evict the respondent-tenant, who is a tenant of one of the said three premises and holding that the requirement of the petition premises is not bona fide, dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioner-landlord under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, by an order dated 6.10.1994 and on appeal, the same was confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, by an order dated 14.2.1997 in R.C.A.No.3. of 1995, on the ground that the revision petitioner-landlord is owning four shops. Hence, the above revision.

2. Mr.T.Susindran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, questioning the legality and propriety of the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 6.10.1994, made in R.C.O.P.No.l of 1994, as confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, by order dated 14.2.1997, made in R.C.A.No.3 of 1995, contends that the revision petitioner's requirement of the petition premises is bona fide, as he is not in occupation of all the non-residential premises.

2.2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-landlord brought to my notice that even though the petitioner-landlord is owning four shops (non-residential premises), he is in occupation of only one premises, where he is running an electrical shop and he is requiring the petition premises to run a finance company under the name and style of "Thangasamy Finance" for which he had already obtained licence from the Tahsildar.

2.3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-landlord also contends that the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority have not gone into the relative hardship caused to the petitioner-landlord by refusing the eviction of the respondent/tenant.

3. Per contra, Mr.K. Yamunan, the learned Counsel appearing f or the respondent, reiterating the findings of the learned Rent controller as well as the Appellate Authority, contends that no revision would lie against such findings under Section 25 of the Act.

4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

5. Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act .makes it clear that mere owning of other non-residential premises itself is not a bar to seen eviction, unless he is in occupation of the other non-residential premises. As per Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, not only the ownership of the three non-residential premises, but also the occupation of the same, for the purpose of business is a relative cri