The tenant is the revision petitioner.

2. This revision arises out of a judgment made in R.C.A.No.18 of 2001 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (II Additional Subordinate Judge), Tirunelveli reversing the order of the learned Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Tirunelveli, dismissing R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2000 filed by the landlords/respondents.

3. The petition mentioned premises is a shop bearing door Nos.7 and 8 in the building bearing Municipal Door Nos.58-C situate in the ground floor of Raja Complex in Tirunelveli Junction measuring about 600 sq. feet. It belongs to the respondents. The revision petitioner has been inducted as a tenant. It is carrying on textile business in the said shop premises. In the said building, the respondents/landlords are running a gold covering shop in the name and style of 'M/s. Mahalakshmi Jewellers bearing door Nos.52-C and 57 measuring about 300 sq. feet.

4. The landlords alleged that the shop premises in which it is carrying on business is situate in an interior portion in the building. There is no frontage to attract the customers. There was no parking facility. Thus, there was less business. The business is being carried on at a loss. However, the shop premises in the possession of the revision petitioner measuring 600 sq. feet. It is also situate in a conspicuous place of the building. It has parking facility for the customers. Road facility. Nearby there are number of shops. Thus, the landlords sought for the possession of the tenanted shop for running their own business. In the rent control petition, it was alleged that though the landlords are having certain shops within the Municipal limits of Tirunelveli, the petition mentioned shop is best suited for their business. Further, the respondents' other shops are in the occupation of others. The landlords alleged that their requirement is bonafide.

5. In such circumstances, the landlords have sought for the eviction of the revision petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2000 before the learned Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Tirunelveli under Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

6. The revision petitioner/tenant filed counter resisting the eviction petition contending that the landlords aspired for huge rent. It was denied by the tenant. In the circumstances, in order to vacate the tenant and let it out to others at an huge rent this eviction petition has been filed. There is no bonafide in the alleged requirement of the respondents. Further, the tenant denied that the petition mentioned shop is best suited for landlords' business. The landlords' shop is situate in an important place. It has various advantages to run their business.

7. Before the Rent Controller the Manager of the respondent Subbiah has been examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked and the tenant had examined its Manager Meenakshi Sundaram as R.W.1 and no document has been marked.

8. Appreciating the said evidence and submissions of both sides the Rent Controller held that actually the eviction petition should have been filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Rent Control Act, but Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act has been wrongly mentioned in the eviction petition, but quoting of wrong Section of law is not fatal. The Rent Controller noted that in the lawyer notice landlords have not mentioned that they need the shop for running their business, it cannot be stated that there will be more business if the shop is situate at a conspicuous place and volume of business is based on the selling of standard goods and customer relationship and there is no specific mentioning in the R.C.O.P. petition why the other shop premises are not suitable to run the business of the respondents. Ultimately, the Rent Controller found that there is no bonafide in the requirement of the respondent and thus dismissed the eviction petition.

9. Aggrieved, the landlords preferred appeal in R.C.A.No.18 of 2001 t