T. Mathivanan, J.

The judgment and decree dated 01.10.2009 and made in the Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A.No.5 of 2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputur are under challenge in this memorandum of Civil Revision. The revision petitioners herein are the landlords, whereas the respondent is the tenant.

2. For easy reference and also for the sake of convenience, the revision petitioners and the respondents may herein after be referred to as the petitioner and the respondent, wherever the context so require.

3. Originally the petitioners have filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 2005 as against the respondent under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vii) and 10(3) (a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (herein after be referred as the "Act") seeking the following reliefs:

(a) directing the respondent to vacate and surrender the vacant possession of the schedule mentioned premises on the ground of wilful default;

(b) own occupation for the 1st petitioner's son and on the ground of denial of title.

4. This petition was strenuously contested by the respondent. In his counter statement, the respondent has specifically stated that he had not denied the title of the petitioners in respect of the petition mentioned property and since the respondent himself had admitted this fact, the ground of denial of title goes out automatically. Therefore, on the remaining two grounds i.e., a) Will full default and b) owners occupation, the petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller directing the respondent to vacate and surrender the vacant possession of the petition mentioned premises within three months.

5. It is also to be noted that the respondent seems to have filed another petition in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2005 under Section 8(5) of the Act seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent before the Tribunal. That petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. However, no reference is available to show as to whether the respondent has preferred any appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority challenging the order of dismissal of the petition in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2005. It is significant to note there that the learned Rent Controller has proceeded to dispose both the Rent Control Original Petitions in R.C.O.P.No.3 and 5 of 2005 in a common order dated 05.03.2007.

6. The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are as under:-

(i) During the year 1999, the respondent came to be in occupation of the petition mentioned premises as a tenant agreeing to take the property on rent for the purpose of running a TV showroom and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per mensem as rent. The tenancy is oral in nature.

(ii) It is the case of the petitioners that with malafide intention, the respondent had begun to send the monthly rent through Money Order in the name of the second petitioner. On coming to know about the evil intention of the respondent, the second petitioner had returned the money order. The scheduled mentioned property is required for establishing third petitioner's business who is carrying on the manufacturing unit in industrial power electronic equipments at Chennai. When the petitioners had expressed their intention of requiring the petition mentioned premises for their business purpose, the respondent had originally agreed to vacate and surrender vacant possession, but at the later point of time, he had been giving out that he would not vacate and surrender vacant possession of the property. The petitioners have no other non-residential building excepting the schedule mentioned premises and its adjoining premises in Srivilliputtur Town. The third petitioner had availed financial facilities from the Bank for the purpose of meeting out the sales business and without establishing his business, he cannot clear the loan account without any default. Hence, the petitioners claim is bona fide. Therefore, they came forward with the above said petition