The landlord's need for the premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act must be genuine, his claim must be bona fide, and he must deserve to be put in possession of the premises.

1. Two different tenants are the petitioners herein.

2. Petitions for eviction were filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and owners occupation, under S. 10(2)(i) and S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The petition premises is situated at Door No. 80, Bazaar Road, Saidapet, Madras 15. According to the land lords, they are the owners of the premises at Door No. 80, Bazaar Road, Saidpaet. Originally the petition premises was owned by the 1st respondent herein and his brother. Later on by exchange of properties, the first respondent herein became the sole owner of the petition premises. According to the landlord, (1st respondent herein), he is carrying on the business in a rented premises under the name and style of “S.K.S. Coffee works” at No. 20, Jeenies road, Saidapet, Madras 15. The landlord is paying a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- for the said premises. According to the landlord, he is not in occupation of any other non residential building of his own in the City of Madras and therefore, he required the petition premises under the occupation of the tenants bonafide for his business.

4. On other hand, the tenants in their counter stating that they are the tenants in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 75/- respectively. According to the tenants, it is not correct on the part of the landlord to state that he is carrying on his business in a rented premises at No. 20, Jeenies road, Saidpat Madras. According to the tenants, the landlord is having several premises of his own in the City of Madras and therefore, there is no bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

5. On considering the evidence both oral and documentary, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion what there is bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and accordingly, eviction was ordered. But on appeal the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on an appraisal of facts, came to the conclusion that there is no bonafide on the part of the landlord in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Aggrieved, the landlord filed a revision before the High Court. The High Court on considering the facts arising in this case, came to the conclusion that the appellate authority failed to consider the element of bonafide in requiring the petition premises by the landlord as contemplated under S. 10(3)(a) of the Act. In order to ascertain the same, the revision was allowed and the Appeal was remitted back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Rent Controller Appellate Authority proceeded to dispose of the appeal remanded by the High Court to its file. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, both the parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary. On considering all these aspects, the Rent Control. Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord established his bona fide in requiring the petition premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered. It is against this order, the present revisions have been preferred by the tenants.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted as under:— The Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the scope and purport of the enquiry in a petition for eviction under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to consider the question of bonafide as contemplated under S. 10(3)(a) of the Act. The landlord came forward with the petition for eviction falsely alleging that the tenants had committed wilful default in payment of rent. It was conc