1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. A petition for eviction was filed against him on the ground of owners occupation. The lower court dismissed the said petition. The appellate court allowed the said petition and ordered eviction. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. The main point urged before me by learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that admittedly, the respondent is carrying on business in the petition premises and the respondent seeks eviction for owners occupation to accommodate his son for his residential purposes. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition for eviction is not maintainable under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In this connection, he relied upon the decision of this Court in Lakshmanan v. Hajee Alavudeen Saheb Sons (1980-1-MLJ 9), wherein this Court has held that since the premises in question was a non-residential premises and since the claim of the landlord was for residential purposes, the landlord was not entitled to evict the tenant. He also relied upon the dictum laid down by this Court in Padmavathy Ammal v. Manickam (1981 I MLJ 35