The main legal point established in the judgment is that in eviction cases under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, it is essential to prove a bonafide need for the premises for running a business and to demonstrate the intention and steps taken to carry out the business.

1. The deceased first revision petitioner alone filed this revision petition against the judgment and decree passed in RCA No.1 of 2002 wherein set aside the order and decreetal order passed in RCOP No.1/1998. During the pendancy of this revision petition, the sole revision petitioner died and the revision petitioners 2 and 3 are impleaded as Legal Representatives of the deceased revision petitioner.

2. The deceased first revision petitioner / landlord filed an eviction petition in RCOP.No.1 of 1998 under Section 10(3) (a) (1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to vacate the respondent / tenant from the petition premises and deliver the same to the deceased revision petitioner. Brief facts stated in the petition are that the deceased revision petitioner was the owner of the petition premises and the respondent is a tenant under the deceased revision petitioner from 01.05.1995 to 30.04.1998. Since the schedule mentioned building required for running his business, the revision petitioner demanded the respondent to vacate the premises after expiry of a lease period, but, the respondent was evaded and also he filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.31 of 1998 with false allegations and hence, the deceased revision petitioner filed the petition for eviction.

3. The respondent / tenant filed a detailed counter in which admitted that he is a tenant under deceased revision petitioner. The case of the respondent is that the tenancy is commenced from 1979 onwards and it is false to state that the deceased revision petitioner had demanded the respondent to vacate the premises after expiry of lease period. According to the respondent, before filing the eviction petition, no notice have been issued to the respondent and on that ground alone the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed. Further the deceased first revision petitioner was not employed and also he having alternative places to run a business. The respondent already filed a suit in O.S.No.275 of 1995 and the same was compromised and settled out of Court. Since the deceased revision petitioner started trouble to the respondent, the respondent filed another suit in O.S.No.31 of 1998 and it is pending. During the pendancy of the suit, the deceased first revision petitioner filed the present eviction petition with false contentions and therefore, prayed for to dismiss the petition.

4. The Rent Controller after hearing both side submissions and came to the conclusion that the requirement of the petition premises to run the old iron business by the deceased revision petitioner is a bonafide one and also the respondent herein failed to prove the contention that the deceased first revision petitioner had another shop, on his own to run the above said business and therefore, allowed the above Rent Control Original Petition and directed the respondent to vacate the premises within a period of three months.

5. Aggrieved over the above said findings, the respondent / tenant preferred a Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A.No.1 of 2002 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority, the respondent / tenant contended that Section 10(3)(a)(i) is only applicable to the residential buildings, but, the petition premises is non residential building. Further, the learned counsel pointed out before the Appellate Authority that Rent Controller had failed to consider the fact that disputed building have two floors and the ground floor is used by the respondent herein (appellant in the appeal) for his business under the name and style of Raja Fancy Hall nearly more than 15 years and the deceased first revision petitioner failed to prove the bonafide requirement as pleaded in the petition and therefore, he is not entitled to evict the respondent.

6. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, on hearing both side contentions and accepted the fact that the schedule mentioned building is non-residential building and the respondent is a tenant. The Rent