The validity of a landlord's claim for own occupation can be upheld, even if initially misquoting the Act's provision.

1. The revision petitioners are the tenants occupying Shop Nos.6 and 7 belonging to the respondent. The respondent is a Doctor and he filed R.C.O.P.Nos.246 and 247 of 2009 against the revision petitioners on the ground of additional accommodation stating that he is a Cardiologist and his wife is a Gynecologist and they want to open the Clinic in their own premises and for that purpose the two shops are required and by removing the wall in between the two shops they will get 200 Sq.ft., and they can run a Clinic in that area. The revision petitioners / tenants contested the applications stating that there is no bona fide on the part of the land lord/ respondent and the land lord has not proved that he is practising as a Doctor and the application was filed only with mala fide intention to evict them from the premises. The Rent Controller held that the petition filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for additional accommodation is not maintainable and the land lord has proved that they required the premises for their own occupation and ordered eviction under Section 10(3) (a)(iii) of the Act and the revision petitioners filed appeals against the orders in R.C.A.No.336 and 337 of 2010 and the learned appellate authority also confirmed the Judgements and Decrees of the learned Rent Controller and hence these two revisions are filed.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the learned Rent Controller erred in ordering eviction on the ground of own occupation after holding that the petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is not maintainable. He further submitted that when the land lord filed petition under the provisions of Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the land lord must be doing some business in the same premises and he bona fidely requires the adjacent premises as additional accommodation and in this case it has been proved through the evidence of land lord that he is not doing any profession and therefore the question of additional accommodation does not arise and without giving any opportunity to the tenants to resist the case on the ground of own occupation, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of own occupation. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted that there is no bona fide on the part of the land lord and the land lord has also filed another application in respect of Door No.8 and in that application he has stated that he requires 100 Sq.ft., of extent for running the clinic and in these present two applications he claimed that he requires 200 Sq.ft., for running the Clinic and therefore there is no bona fide.

3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. It is true that the respondent/ land lord filed petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation. The learned Rent Controller rightly held that the petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is not maintainable and the land lord has wrongly quoted the provisions and the building is required for own occupation of the land lord and ordered eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It is seen from the petition in both the R.C.O.Ps that the land lord has specifically stated that they bona fide require the premises to open a Clinic one for himself and another for his wife. Therefore, the land lord has specifically stated in the petitions that he wants to open the Clinic one for himself and another for his wife and for that purpose he requires the building for his own occupation. Therefore the land lord has pleaded for own occupation and sought for eviction on that ground. But unfortunately the petition was filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act as if the land lord required the premises as additional accommodation. It is a settled law that quoting of wrong pro