This Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings taken out by the respondent under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. The respondent is the landlord. He filed an application under section 7 (1) of the Madras Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenant, the petitioner herein, from the suit premises bearing Door No.118. The respondent, that is the landlord, has also got three other houses bearing Door No. 125, which is in the occupation of himself and his second son, Door No.119 in the occupation of his eldest son and Door No.111 in which he has got a joint right with a third party. The reasons for the eviction as alleged in his petition are that the petitioner herein was in arrears of rent and the second son of the respondent is married and he wants to set up for his son an independent family of his own and for the said purpose he requires the property mentioned in the petition for the occupation of his son and for his personal use.

The petitioner herein contended that there was no necessity for the respondent herein to set up an independent family of his own for his son as he was married ten years ago and was living with his father, who is a widower, during all these years, and that the application for eviction was not bona fide for his own use, but, on the other hand has been filed to get an enhanced rent.

The learned District Munsif, who is the Rent Controller, gave a finding that the respondent herein, the landlord, required the suit premises bona fide for his personal use, that is, for setting up a separate family for his second son. In the result eviction was ordered by the learned District Munsif.

Against this order, the tenant, that is the petitioner herein, filed an appeal C M ANo.32 of 1958 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Coimbatore. The learned Subordinate Judge decided the case on the interpretation of section 7 (3) (a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, which was then in force.

Section 7 (3) (a) is as follows:

“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) in case it is a residential building, if the landlord requires it for his own occupation and he is not occupying a residential building of his own in the City, town or village concerned;”

The learned Judge was of opinion that as the landlord, that is the respondent herein has been occupying a residential building of his own and even if he bona fide required the disputed premises for the occupation of his son, he would not be entitled to evict under section 7 (3) (a). He also found that the Act does not make any special provision for the members of a Hindu joint family and as such the joint family cannot be held to be a landlord for the prupose of section 7,clause (3) (a) of the Act. In the result, he set aside the order of eviction and dismissed the petition filed by the respondent (Landlord).

Again this judgment the respondent herein filed a Civil Revision Petition in the District Court of Coimbatore. The learned District Judge gave a finding that the application is bona fide and the landlord requires the suit premises for setting a separate family for his second son. The learned District Judge took a contrary view to that of the learned Subordinate Judge and came to the conclusion that the word ‘landlord’ includes a member of the family. Therefore he held that the petition filed by the landlord for eviction is maintainable even though he requires Ft for setting up a separate family for his second son in spite of the fact that the landlord himself is in occupation of a building of his own excluding the suit premises.

Against this order the tenant, that is the petitioner herein filed the present Civil Revision Petition. By that time the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 had been amended and the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, had come i