S DEVAN Vs. N PALANIAPPAN LANDLORD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is the landlord. He has filed R.C.O.P. Nos. 5 to 7 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tambaram for eviction of the tenants on the ground that the building is required for owner's occupation, i.e., the building is required for the business of the respondent's sons. So far as the R.C.O.P. No. 6/93 is concerned, the additional ground for eviction is that the tenant had sub-leased the premises.

(2.) THE petitioners herein filed counter contending that the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) for owner's occupation is not maintainable and only petition under Section 10(3)(c) for additional accommodation is maintainable. Further, they contended that there is no bona fide in the requirement of the landlord for owner's occupation since the respondent's sons are not carrying on any business. THE petitions had been filed due to the strained relationship, as the petitioners had filed certain criminal cases against the respondent.

(3.) THE petitioners herein filed appeal in R.C.A. Nos. 24 to 26 of 1994 before the Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Poonamallee. THE Appellate Authority also concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeals by his judgment dated 27.10.1995. THE Petitioners have filed the present revisions against the eviction ordered by both the authorities.