A landlord's requirement of the demised portions for her own occupation and occupation of family members is considered bona fide if there is a genuine need for such occupation and the landlord does not have any other suitable accommodation.

The respondents in R.C.O.P.No.668 of 1985 are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.

2. The petitioner filed the R.C.O.P. for eviction against the respondents under Sec.l0(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter the Act. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The first respondent is the tenant of petitioner in respect of two rooms, one hall, verandah-cum-kitchen, bath room etc., in front portion of the building bearing door No.24, Thoppa Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras 13 on a monthly rental of Rs.200. The second respondent is in occupation of two rooms, hall and verandah in the rear portion on a monthly rental of Rs.160. The petitioners husband is in Singapore, Malacca and Malaysia and he has decided to leave Singapore, Malacca Malaysia once and for all and to settle down in Madras. The petitioner’s mother about 90 years old and the petitioner along with her mother-in-law and her matured daughter is residing in Avoor village. The petitioner’s daughter has to be married and prospects of getting good alliance will be bright if the petitioner settles down in Madras with her daughter. Further the petitioner is a sick person and she needs immediate treatment in Madras. The petitioner’s son is an Automobile Engineer and he wants to set his business in Madras City near the petition mentioned premises. The petitioner requires portions in the occupation of the respondents for her own occupation and the occupation the members of her family. The petitioner’s requirement of the petition mentioned premises for her own occupation and for the occupation of the members of her family is bona fide.

3. The respondents resisted the application for eviction contending as follows: There absolutely no necessity for the petitioner and her mother-in-law for leaving the village for coming over to Madras. The entire upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building in the occupation of the petitioner. If the petitioner desires to live with her husband mother-in-law she can always do so in the upstairs portion of the building in question petitioner’s requirement of the portions in the occupation of the respondents for her own is not bona fide. The petition filed under Sec.l0(3)(a)(i) of the Act is not maintainable, because the petitioner is already in occupation of a portion of the premises viz., first floor of the premises.

4. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the respondents and dismissed the petition eviction. As against the order of the Rent Controller the petitioner filed an appeal R.C.A.No.414 of 1988 before the Appellate Authority (8th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The Appellate Authority on a consideration of the entire evidence on record came the conclusion that the petitioner’s requirement of the demised portions for her occupation bona fide. Consequently the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Appellate Authority the respondents have preferred present civil revision petition.

5. Mr.Kishore, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that admittedly upstairs portion of the petition mentioned building is vacant; the petitioner has not given any reason for not occupying the upstairs portion and, therefore, the petitioner requirement of the demised portions for her occupation and the occupation of the members of the family is not bona fide. The question we have to examine in this civil revision petition is, whether the petitioner’s requirement of the demised portions for her occupation and occupation of the members of her family is bona fide. P.W.I, is the power of attorney agent of the petitioner and who happens to be her husband’s brother. He has stated in evidence that the petitio