The main legal point established in the judgment is that a landlord, even if a shareholder in a company running a business, has the right to seek eviction for personal business purposes as per Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2009 passed by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court at Madras in R.C.A.No.807 of 2007 in confirming the order and decree dated 24.10.2007 passed by the learned XIII Judge, Small Causes Court at Madras in RCOP No.649 of 1994, this civil revision petition has been focussed by the tenants.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller.

3. A thumbnail sketch of the relevant facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:

(i). The present landlord-Manoj was represented by his guardian Srinivasan. Subsequently, the guardian minor Manoj attained majority and he started figuring himself as the petitioner/landlord. The said Srinivasan also died.

(ii). Pithily and precisely, the case of the petitioner in the Rent Control proceedings is to the effect that the demised premises, which is now being used as a non-residential premises by the tenant, is required for the personal occupation of Manoj, who wants to start his own independent business in wheat and wheat flour products.

(iii). The revision petitioner/respondent resisted the petition by filing counter contending that there was no bona fide in seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of additional accommodation and that the revision petitioner has been doing textile business there.

(iv). During enquiry, on the landlord's side, one Venugopal examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1. On the side of the respondent/tenant, one Ukkamchand examined himself as RW1 and marked Exs.R1 to R3.

(v). Ultimately, the Rent controller ordered eviction and dismissed the RCOP.

(vi). Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred appeal in RCA.No.807 of 2007 for nothing but to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller.

(vii). Challenging and impugning the orders of both the courts below, this revision has been filed by the tenant on various grounds.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant, placing reliance on the grounds of revision would pilot his argument, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The ingredients of Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 were not taken into consideration by both the courts below and they simply ordered eviction. The evidence would speak by itself that the landlord is running a factory in wheat flour products in the city of Madras, wherein the demised premises is situated and as such, he is having no right to seek eviction on the ground of personal occupation.

(ii) Irrespective of the contentions raised in the counter by the tenant, the landlord was enjoined to satisfy the ingredients as contemplated under Section 10(3) (a) (iii); but that was not done so. Even then both the courts below simply ordered eviction, warranting interference in this revision.

6. In a bid to torpedo and to make mincemeat of the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would advance his argument, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

(a) The counter is as silent as silence could be relating to the pleas, which are sought to be pressed into service by the learned counsel for the tenant in his arguments now.

(B) Nowhere it is stated that the said factory is owned by the landlord herein. Indubitably and indisputably the said factory is run by a company, of which the landlord might be a shareholder and that it does not mean that the landlord should not seek eviction of the tenant from the demised premises for his own occupation.

(C) The legal personality of the company is different from the personality of the landlord herein. There is nothing to indicate that the revision petitioner is the owner of