Judgment This petition arises against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in rent control proceedings confirming the order of the Rent Controller refusing to order eviction of the respondent. The petitioner was once occupying one of the two shops now in the possession and occupation of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 was his landlord for some time and afterwards P.W. 2 wanted to expand his own business and therefore got possession of the shop in which the petitioner was carrying on his business. After P.W. 2 took possession of the shop in which the petitioner was carrying on the business, he appears to have permitted the petitioner to keep tailoring machine during the nights and also some of the garments belonging to the customers of P. W. 1, for the sake of safety. With such permission granted P.W. 1 appears to have been carrying on his business on the Corporation pavement opposite to P.W. 2’s shop. The respondent, who is in occupation of the shop in question now from which he is sought to be evicted by the petitioner, was let into possession of the shop by the petitioner. When the petitioner was asked to give up the shop of which he was in possession by P.W. 2 the petitioner in his turn called upon the respondent to vacate the shop in respect of which the respondent was a sub-tenant under the petitioner. On more than one occasion, the respondent agreed to do so, both orally and in writing. But when the petitioner filed the application for evicting the respondent on his failure to keep up his promise, the respondent raised a plea that he was not his tenant and that the petitioner was not entitled to evict him in view of the fact that he was in possession of another shop, where he was carrying on business. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Tribunal have both concurred in the view that the respondent was not the tenant of the petitioner and that the petitioner himself was in occupation of another shop and therefore he was not entitled to evict the respondent. The question is how far their decision could be sustained. I have been taken through the entire evidence both oral and documentary in this case by both learned counsel appearing on opposite sides. I have also been taken through the orders of the two Courts below. The question is how far their decision could be sustained. I have been taken through the entire evidence both oral and documentary in this case by both learned counsel appearing on opposite sides. I have also been taken through the orders of the two Courts below. On a perusal of the entire evidence and also the orders of the two Courts below I am of the opinion that both the Courts have not considered, the case in its proper perspective. The documentary evidence let in on behalf of the petitioner proves beyond any doubt that the respondent was a tenant under the petitioner and the plea, which he has set up, is wholly an after-thought and unacceptable. The exhibits filed on behalf of the petitioner, which are all in the writing of the respondent, are good and sufficient evidence to establish the fact that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was of landlord and tenant. Therefore, in my opinion both the Courts have come to the wrong conclusion, that the petitioner did not succeed in establishing that the respondent was his tenant. Payment of rents and also several letters given by the respondent could point to no other conclusion than that he was a tenant under the petitioner. The second point is as to whether the application of the petitioner was bona fide even here. I am of the opinion that the Courts below have not understood or appreciated the real scope of the case. All that the oral evidence establishes is that for some period prior to P.W. 2 taking over possession of the shop the petitioner was in occupation of a shop as tenant under P.W. 2 . But when P.W. 2 established a jewellery shop and expanded his business, the petitioner was compelled to give up his possession of the shop. Since then, the evidence proves beyond any doubt that he has gone on with a shop of his own or a shop to which he is entitled to possession. The only shop to which he could lay claim was the one that was in the occupation of the respondent. In consequence of his having been compelled to give up possession of the other shop by P.W. 2 naturally the petitioner has turned towards his tenant to vacate and give possession of the shop to which he was entitled. The only shop to which he could lay claim was the one that was in the occupation of the respondent. In consequence of his having been compelled to give up possession of the other shop by P.W. 2 naturally the petitioner has turned towards his tenant to vacate and give possession of the shop to which he was entitled. The evidence of all the witnesses for the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that there has been cross-examination, only points to the fact that the petitioner during the period when he was insisting upon the respondent to vacate the shop had nothing but permissive use of P.W. 2’s shop in order to keep his tailoring machine and also his garments during nights and that he was carrying on his businesses throughout the day on the pavement belonging to the Corporation. The evidence let in on behalf of the respondent is absolutely unworthy of credence and it does not prove by any means that the petitioner had a shop of his own or that he shared the shop of P.W. 2. A mere permission granted to the petitioner to keep his machine during the nights and also his garments would not amount to a possession or occupation of his shop in his own independent right by the petitioner nor could it amount to a sharing of the shop belonging to P.W. 2 so as to invoke the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the petitioners. The Courts below have misunderstood and misapplied the scope of the decision of Subba Rao, J., in Thanappa Chetti v. Govindaswami Naicker1. Unless and until it has been established that the petitioner was actually in a non-residential premises of his own or that he was entitled to possession of a non-residential premises which was available to him for his business which he was carrying at the time, the ruling in the decision could not be made applicable. In this case it has not been established that the petitioner was in possession or was entitled to possession of any shop. In these circumstances the decisions of the Courts below amount to a failure of justice in the case. They have both to be set aside. The petitioner will be entitled to an order for eviction of the respondent from the shop which the respondent is now in occupation. In these circumstances the decisions of the Courts below amount to a failure of justice in the case. They have both to be set aside. The petitioner will be entitled to an order for eviction of the respondent from the shop which the respondent is now in occupation. This Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed ; but in the circumstances, I do not think I need order costs. Time of delivery of possession three months from this date. R.M. ----- Petition allowed.