The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioners to prove their bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii), and the statutory obligations of the tenant regarding rent payment and deposit.

1. In the above civil revision petition, the petitioners challenges the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.1 of 1996 whereby the petitioners/ landlords were non-suited for the relief of eviction on the ground of requirement of the premises for owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) on the ground that the petitioners have not proved their bona fide in respect of their requirement.

2. The petitioners are brothers and they purchased the demised property on 31.1.1993. The respondents/tenants are in possession and occupation of the building having three door numbers viz., 161, 162 and 163, Gandhi Road, Sriperumbudur. Door No. 162 is a residential premises and Door Nos.161 and 163 are non-residential premises. On 31.5.1993, the petitioners/ landlords purchased the entire property. The first petitioner purchased the property bearing Door No.161 and a half share in property bearing Door No.162. The second petitioner has purchased the rest of the half share in the property bearing Door No.162 and the entire property bearing Door No. 163 on the very same day. The respondents/tenants were in occupation and possession of the demised premises even prior to their purchase. Door Nos.161 and 163 are used by the respondents for the purpose of pawn broker business and Door No. 162 is being used as a residential premises. The first petitioner has a wife and one son and the second petitioner has wife and son. All of them are living together along with their parents in a rented premises. The petitioners are not owning any other residential premises except the demised premises and as such, Door No. 162, the residential building is required for their own use and occupation.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that they are assisting their father in provision store business in a rented premises at No. 158, Gandhi Road, Sriperumbudur. The first petitioner wanted to do a general store whole sale and retail business in the property bearing Door No. 161. For that purpose, he has also applied to the Executive Officer, Sriperumbudur Town Panchayat for licence. He also applied to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer for registering himself as dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Likewise, the second petitioner in addition to the requirement of the premises Door No. 162 for the purpose of residential, also sought for premises No. 163 for the purpose of doing business in plastic household articles and he has also taken steps for getting licence from the Executive Officer, Sriperumbudur Town Panchayat and also the Registration Certificate from the Commercial Tax Department. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondents are owning building in the very same locality at Door No.66, Gandhi Road, which is a residential and a shop portion and it is vacant and ready for occupation. The respondents also own Door No.66A, Gandhi Road and let out to State Bank of India. There is a lot of space in the frontage. The said buildings are just a few metres away in the opposite side of the demised premises. With these allegations, they filed the application for eviction of the respondents herein.

4. That application has been refuted by the respondents on the ground that the petitioners' father owns two buildings. The petitioners are not really intended to shift their residence to Door No. 162 and not really intended to start the business in Door Nos.161 and 163. The requirement is not bona fide. The premises in Door No.66, Gandhi Road is not fit to do any business and Door No.66A has been given in rent to State Bank of India. The petitioners and their family members are living comfortably in the premises in which they are living. The requirement of the residential as well as the non-residential premises by the petitioners is not bona fide.

5. However, when the R.C.O.P application before the Rent Controller has been taken up for orders, since the respondent did not lea