This petition arises from proceedings in eviction. The petitioner applied at Madras for an order of eviction against the respondent from premises No. 176, Nethaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road. The ground of the petitioner was that he was not occupying for the purpose of the business which he was carrying on a non-residential building in the City, which is his own and that he bona fide required the premises for his occupation. The petition was resisted, but was ordered "by the Rent Controller. The respondent’s appeal was successful. But this Court allowed the petition in revision and remitted the matter to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal. It has since come to the same conclusion as it did before and directed that the eviction petition should stand dismissed. The matter is brought before this Court over again under section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

While disposing of the appeal, the Court below rightly posed the point for its decision, namely, whether the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own occupation, but considered that the evidence on record did not establish bona fide on the part of the petitioner. It referred to the allegations made by the petitioner in an earlier application to the State Government for exemption of the premises from application thereto of some of the provisions of the Act, which has since been superseded by Madras Act XVIII of 1960, and one or two other facts from the evidence, thought that in view of them the petitioner’s claim for an order of eviction was totally Inconsistent with his case in the earlier application, that he had suppressed a material fact, namely, he only admitted in his cross-examination that he had a building of his own situate opposite to the premises in question and that he had seven or eight other residential buildings spread over the city and fetching a large rent, that this made his evidence unreliable and that finally it was not the case of the petitioner that premises No. 177, a portion of which he has been in occupation, is insufficient or too big for his business. The Court below on that process of reasoning concluded that though the petitioner was not occupying a building of his own for the purpose of his business, his claim was not bona fide.

It is argued before us that the approach made by the lower appellate Court is erroneous and vitiated its order. In our opinion, there is force in the contention. Section 10 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, provides for eviction of tenants in certain circumstances. Sub-section 3 (a) (iii) of the section allows a landlord to apply to the Controller for an order directing a tenant to put him in possession of the building if the landlord is not occupying for purposes of business which he is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own. The second proviso to this clause is to the effect that where a landlord has already obtained possession of a building under this provision, he shall not be entitled to apply again for possession of another non-residential building of his own. If the conditions of these provisions are satisfied, the Controller may make an order as asked for by the landlord provided he is further satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide. It is not in controversy before us that the conditions of section 10 (3) (a) (iii) are satisfied and, therefore, the only question is, as was rightly posed by the lower appellate Court, whether the claim of the landlord is bona fide. This requirement that the claim of the landlord should be bona fide is common to not only the provision under which the petitioner applied in this case, but also to several other provisions which provide for tenant’s eviction. The expression, therefore, will have to be understood in the context, but subject to that, it means that for present purposes the landlord honestly desires to occupy the premi