Petition filed under section 10(3) (a) (ii) of the Act is maintainable.

1. The tenant who suffered an order of eviction before the learned Appellate Authority has filed the above revision.

2. The landlord/respondents filed O.P.No.532 of 1986 on the file of the learned Rent Controller. XV Small Cause Court, Madras for eviction of the petitioner/ tenant under Sec. 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. According to the landlord, the respondents father is carrying on business under the name and style of Renuka Advertising Agencies at No.31, Balfour Road, Kellys, Madras, (hereinafter called the said premise) and he is not having any other premises of his own or that of the minors. The petitioner/tenant contested that petition by filing a counter wherein he denied the fact of carrying on the business under the name and style of Renuka Advertising Agencies by the respondents father at the address mentioned above and also denied that the respondents father is not having any other premises of his won or that of the minors. Relying on the notice issued by the respondents dated 9.1.1986 the tenant has contended that the fact regarding the carrying on the business under the name and style of Renuka Advertising Agencies by the respondents father was not stated in the said notice itself would show that he is not carrying on the said business as stated in the petition. According to the tenant the landlords do not require the premises in question for their own occupation but they are keen in increasing the monthly rent.

3. The Rent Controller after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence rejected the petition for eviction. The landlords filed R.C.A.No.686 of 1989 on the file of the Appellate Authority, VII Judge, Court of Small Cause, Madras, Before the Appellate Authority, the landlords filed a petition in M.P.No.494 of 1990 to receive the additional documents. The same was allowed by order dated 6.12.1990. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 4.2.1992 allowed the Appeal holding that the requirement of the premises for the own occupation of the respondents father is bona fide. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant has filed the above revision.

4. The respondents herein filed a petition for eviction on the ground that their father and been carrying on business under the name and style of Renuka Advertising Agencies in the address mentioned above and he was not carrying on business in a premises of his own or that of his minors. The respondents require the said premises to carry on the said business. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant has submitted that the respondents have not proved that their father is carrying on the business under the name and style of Renuka Advertising Agencies in the said premises. Even assuming that they are carrying on the said business in the said premises, the same has not been proved to be a rented premises. On these two grounds the learned counsel has submitted that the petition filed the respondents cannot be sustained.

5. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the petition it is not stated that the premises in question is a rented premises. According to him, even P.W.I, has not stated that he has been carrying on the said business in a rented premised. On that basis the learned counsel has submitted that since the landlords have not pleaded and proved that they are carrying on the business in a rented premised the petition under Sec.10(3)(a)(iii) cannot be maintained. Doing a business in a rented premises is not a pre requisite to file a petition under Sec. 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Act. Sec. 10(3)

(a) (iii) of the Act is as follows:

“In case it is any other non-residential building which is used for the purpose of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is own;

Provided that a person who becomes a landlord after the commencement of the tenancy by an instrument inter vivos shall not be entitled to apply under