The Revision Petitioners herein are the petitioners in trial Court has filed R.C.O.P. No. 1128 of 2009 on the file of the Learned Rent Controller/Court of Small Causes at Chennai has filed the above RCOP No. 1128 of 2009 for the relief of own use and occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 stated that the Revision Petitioners are the absolute owner of the subject property and the Land-lord of the premises bearing Old Door No. 118, New No. 86, Choolai High Road, Chennai. The Respondent was inducted as tenant and he paid monthly rent of Rs.6300/-. Originally the subject property was purchased by the Petitioners jointly on 16.10.1985 and 23.10.1985 respectively and the petitioners herein are now residing at the above property in 2nd Floor and jointly having a Jewellery Shop at Shop No. 14C, 60 Anna Nagar Plaza of Second Avenue, Chennai-40 in the name and style of Sri Rachaput Jewels. Now the petitioners herein wanted to have their own independent business of their choice and hence two brothers decided to have their independent business with the available 300 sq.ft. building of their own i.e. the scheduled mentioned property. The Petitioners herein are now required the subject matter of premises for their own shop use on bonafide requirement i.e. for his brother namely R. Renga Babu, the first Petitioner herein to start a new jewelry shop.

2. The Revision Petitioners herein contended that neither the petitioners herein nor any of the family members own any other building in Chennai city and the subject building is very much suitable for the business purpose. The Respondent herein filed a counter contended that the respondent herein is not a tenant but only Vijaya Traders is a tenant, because rent is paid in the name of the Company and the respondent herein is having business in the name and style of SINGER SEWING MACHINE and the respondent admitted that the petitioners herein are the owners of the property and the respondent herein has originally paid the monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. After periodical increments, now he is paying a sum of Rs.6300/- p.m. From the beginning of 2009, the petitioners herein demanded to enhance the rent from Rs.6300/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. But the respondent herein did not agree for such enhanced amount and the first petitioner is doing money lending business having office at home itself. The 2nd Petitioner is carrying Jewelry business in Anna Nagar at Chennai for the past about 15 years. The third petitioner is not living at Madras, but he settled in Hyderabad doing his software business. The 2nd and 3rd Petitioners herein are separately living in the 2nd floor of subject premises. Hence demand for own use and occupation is not bonafide and the respondent herein for the past 30 years is carrying on business in the demised premises and the respondent herein is not having any building nearby the demised premises or in around that locality even on higher rent for his business. The respondent s only alternative is to wind up the business which would affect him and his family.

3. On perusal of the witnesses and records on either side, the Learned Rent Controller ordered eviction by order and decree dated 12.08.2010 on the ground of own use and occupation. As against the order of eviction, the respondent/tenant has filed R.C.A. No. 652 of 2010 before the Rent Control Appellate Court at Chennai (XIII Judge, Small causes Court at Chennai). The Learned Rent Control Appellate Judge has erroneously allowed the R.C.A by Judgment and decree dated 15.10.2010 on the ground that the revision petitioners/landlords have not required the subject premises for own use and occupation and their requirement is not bonafide. It is further held by the Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority that the petitioners in the RCOP Petition stated that the demised premises is required for the 1st petitioner to start Jewelry shop, whereas in th