The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition is whether a wholesale merchant carrying on business in a premises belonging to him or to which he is entitled under the Madras Buldings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 can evict his tenant in another premises either belonging to him or to which he is entitled under the Act, to enable him to carry on a retail business in respect of the very commodity dealt with by him as a whole-sale dealer. The answer to this question depends upon the proper construction of section 7 (3) (a) (iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. Though this Act has now been replaced by another recent enactment, it is common ground that this case is governed by the old Act of 1949. The petitioner in this Revision Petition who is the tenant has been evicted by order of the House Rent Controller in H.R.C. No. 1353 of 1959 and his order has been confirmed by the Court of Small Causes at Madras in H.R.A.No. 134 of 1961. Hence this Revision Petition has been preferred by the aggrieved tenant.

The facts as admitted or found by the Courts below are as follows: In respect of premises No. 6/285, China Bazaar Road, the respondent is the chief tenant holding under the Official Trustee of Madras. He had been carrying on business in paper and stationery articles in whosale and retail for over two decades at premises No. 50, Bunder Street, Madras, and also in premises No. 6/285, China Bazaar Road. The retail business was however stopped in 1944 and the premises No. 6/285, China Bazaar Road was let out to the petitioner. The respondent’s case is that in March, 1950 the petitioner surrendered possession of the premises which was kept under lock and key by the respondent. According to the respondent the petitioner was permitted to do business in the front portion of the premises upon a piank attached to it. The allegation against the petitioner is that he forcibly broke open the lock of the front door and occupied the premises proper. The petitioner denies having surrendered possession to the respondent and of course denies having trespassed into the premises. It is however unnecessary to go into this disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner is only a trespasser or not. It is now common ground that the petitioner is the lessee under the respondent in respect of premises No. 6/285, China Bazaar Road, on a monthly rental of Rs. 60. The Court of Small Causes, the appellate Court, has found that the respondent is carrying on both wholesale and retail business at No. 50, Bunder Street. It is also found by both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority that the respondent requires premises No. 6/285, China Bazaar Road, bona fide for the purpose of carrying on a retail business. It is not disputed that the respondent, as the chief tenant holding under the Official Trustee of Madras and as the person letting out premises No. 6/285, China Bazaar Road to the petitioner is the landlord within the meaning of the provisions of the Rent Control Act entitled to pray for eviction. If any authority is needed that a chief tenant of a premises is a landlord entitled to evict his own tenant reference need only be made to the decision of this Court in Nataraja Asari v. Balasubramania1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent is not the landlord clothed with the right to evict under the Act, and that, if at all, only the Official Trustee of Madras can move in the matter. This contention is obviously untenable in view of the categoric admission made by the petitioner himself in Exhibit R-2, a reply notice sent by him to the respondent, wherein he has admitted that the respondent is his landlord. There is no substance in this contention.

The main point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is one which calls for an interpretation of the relevant provision of the Act, namely, section 7 (3) (a) (iii). The terms of section 7 in so far as they are material may now