The petitioner before me is the landlady. This petition arises under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The petitioner filed an application for possession of her premises on the ground that the same was required for the business carried on by her husband. The respondent-tenant contended originally that he was not the tenant, that the requirement of the petitioner was not bonafide and that in any event the application was not maintainable as the premises was only required by the landlady’s husband. In the appeal before the Court of Small Causes, the relationship of landlord and tenant was not canvassed. Both the Rent Controller and the Court of Small Causes held that the petitioner required the premises bonafide for use and occupation. The Rent Controller however held, on the question of maintainability, that the petition was maintainable by the landlady though the premises was required by her husband. But, on this question, the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes differed and held that the requirement by the landlady’s husband of the premises belonging to the landlady will not be a ground for eviction under section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of Ac