The landlord's bona fide requirement for own use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on business by a family member is a valid ground for eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

1. The revision petitioner/tenant has filed the Civil Revision Petition challenging the eviction ordered by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of own use and occupation by the landladys son by reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller, who refused to order eviction on that ground.

2. The respondent/landlady has filed the Rent Control Original Petition seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition non-residential premises, viz., entire ground floor portion in premises bearing door No. 13, Peddu Naicken Street, Kondithope, Madras-79 for own use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on business. In the petition it is stated that the revision petitioner/tenant carrying on business in provisional store on a monthly rent of Rs. 425/-. On the death of landlady s husband, the entire family depends upon the income of the landladys son G. Raveender, who started business in the name and style of “Sona Plastic Industries” in the rented premises at No. 1, Kannayya Naidu Street, Kondithope, Madras-79 and paying Rs. 2,300/- per month towards rent. Therefore, the respondent/landlady requires the petition non-residential premises bona fide for own use and occupation by her son G. Raveender to carry on business in the name and style of “Sona Plastic Industries”, which is now carried on in the rented premises.

3. The petition was opposed in the counter that the requirement of the petition non-residential premises is not bona fide. It is further urged in the counter that the petition premises is situated in a commercial zone and therefore, the landlady cannot seek the premises for the purpose of running plastic industry by her son and for which industry licence is to be obtained under Section 287 of the City Municipal Corporation Act and which in turn is to be regulated by the M.M.D.A. Act and since the revision petitioner/tenant is in occupation of the portion measuring 120 square feet, it may not be suitable to run the industry as sought for by the landlady for her son. The revision petitioner/tenants uncle is in occupation of the adjoining portion as tenant and having failed in her attempt to vacate him, the landlady has filed this Rent Control Original Petition, subject matter of this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Before the Rent Controller, the landladys son G. Raveender was examined as P.W. 1 and the tenant examined himself as R.W. 1. Considering the oral evidence adduced on either side and Exs. P-1 to P-6 marked on the side of the landlady, the learned Rent Controller finding that the requirement of the petition non-residential premises for own use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on business by the landladys son G. Raveender is not bona fide and in as much as P.W. 1 is residing in the first floor portion and the petition non-residential premises is in the ground floor, the petition as filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as “the Act”) is not maintainable and in that the landlady could have sought eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and ultimately dismissed the Rent Control Original Petition. The order was challenged in the appeal and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller, found that the requirement of the petition non-residential premises for the purpose of carrying on business by the landladys son P.W. 1 G. Raveender to run plastic industry is bona fide and so ordered eviction on that ground by allowing the appeal, as per common order passed in R.C.A. No. 1200 of 1996 along with R.C.A. No. 1199 of 1996 filed against R.C.O.P. No. 2776 of 1993. It appears R.C.O.P. No. 2776 of 1993 was filed seeking eviction on the same ground against the uncle of the revision petitioner/tenant herein who occupied another portion of the same premises bearing door No. 13, Peddu Naicken St