No scope for holding that landlord should be satisfied with two rooms.

The instant petition is the culmination of a proceeding for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he has been a subtenant in the premises and that the landlord-first respondent herein needed the premises by way of additional accommodation for his business purposes. The landlord initiated the proceeding by a petition under S. 10(2)(ii)(a) and under S. 10(3)(c) of the Pondicherry Buddings (Lease and Kent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, impleading the tenant N. Subbarayalu and the petitioner calling him a sub-tenant. The trial Court found in favour of the landlord on both counts and ordered for eviction. The Court of appeal below, however, has reversed the finding as to the sub-tenancy, but found in favour of the landlord that he needed the additional accommodation bona fide and thus affirmed the order of eviction.

2. Facts that seem to be undisputed are, that the landlord first respondent herein leased out the demised premises in favour of N. Subbarayalu on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,050/- for a period of three years. According to the landlord, N. Subbarayalu was running a shop in the demised premises, but later sublet the same in favour of the second respondent for a higher rent without his consent and knowledge. The second respondent in the trial court, petitioner herein, started running a business in the name and style of Nagarajan Traders, and thus since the demised premises was sublet by the tenant, the landlord became entitled to evict him. The landlord further alleged that he was running a textile shop under the name and style of V.S.T. Textiles in a portion of the building which consisted of four shops, one being in possession of the sublessee, petitioner herein. He desperately needed expansion of his business premises, and thus additional accommodation could be found only in the shop in the occupation of the tenant. The second respondent in the trial Court petitioner herein, who alone contested the proceeding, denied the sublease and disputed the landlords claim of necessity of the demised premises for additional accommodation for his textile business. He has stated inter alia that the demised premises was taken on lease by Thirumurugan Enterprises in 1983, in which Enterprises he was a partner. In the year 1986, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,050/-, and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as advance. The partners of Thirumurugan Enterprises changed continuously from 1983 to 1986. This Enterprise was dissolved in the year 1987 followed by a new venture by him, who was a partner in Thirumurugan Enterprises, in the name and style of Nagarajan Traders. This was within the knowledge of the landlord. The landlord accepted rent from him without any protest or demur, and the petition for eviction for that reason was not in good faith.

3. On the question of sublease, the Court of appeal below has said as follows:

“On the first point, the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that in this case there is no sub-lease at all, because the appellant himself was a partner in the business which was run in the name and style of Thirumurugan Enterprises from 1983 onwards. The partnership was dissolved and this appellant who was one of the partners continued to run the business under a different name. Under these circumstances, I do not think there is any sub-lease. The appellant was admittedly a partner in the bus iness which was started in 1983 and the other partners have come out of the partnership firm and this appellant converted the business into another under the name and style as Nagarajan Traders. Mere change of business will not create a sublease. On the other hand, if a new person is inducted in the demised premises to conduct separate business, then it may amount to sub-lease. But that is not the case. As admitted by the landlord, the appellant himself was a partner in the original business started in the year 1983 and he continues to run the business under a different name, which cannot b