1. The respondent is the landlord. He has filed R.C.O.P. Nos. 5 to 7 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tambaram for eviction of the tenants on the ground that the building is required for owners occupation, i.e., the building is required for the business of the respondents sons. So far as the R.C.O.P. No. 6/93 is concerned, the additional ground for eviction is that the tenant had sub-leased the premises.

2. The petitioners herein filed counter contending that the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) for owners occupation is not maintainable and only petition under Section 10(3)(c) for additional accommodation is maintainable. Further, they contended that there is no bona fide in the requirement of the landlord for owners occupation since the respondents sons are not carrying on any business. The petitions had been filed due to the strained relationship, as the petitioners had filed certain criminal cases against the respondent.

3. The Rent Controller had carefully considered all the points raised by the tenants and found that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is maintainable and ultimate