Judgment :- The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant under section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the Act) on the ground that the petitioner is a tenant of one shed (garage) in the front portion of the ground floor of premise No.216, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras-1 on the monthly rent of Rs.200/- payable on the subsequent English Calendar month, that the landlord requires the same for keeping his car and motor cycle and that the said garage is required for his personal use. The tenant contended that the portion in question is not a garage that the tenant is conducting business from 1970 in this portion, that the landlord is not in need of the said premises and that there is no bona fides in the prayer made by the landlord. Both the authorities below ordered eviction holding that the portion under the occupation of the tenant is a garage and that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is as against this order the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant. 2. Mr.S.Sampathkumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant submits that the car and and the motor cycle belonged to a partnership firm and not to the landlord and as such, he is not entitled to ask for the premises in question to park these vehicles. The learned counsel further submits that the portion in question is not a garage, that it was not adapted for such use and hence, the petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is not maintainable. 3. I have carefully gone through the pleadings, evidence and the orders of the authorities below, Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act reads as follows: "A landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d) apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building ... In case, it is a non-residential building, which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use, if the landlord requires it for his own use or for the use of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying any such building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own". P.W.1 has given evidence to the effect that the car and the motor cycle are in his use and that his son also uses the same. It is his further evidence that his brother-in-law was originally keeping his vehicle in the said portion. 4. It is clear from section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act extracted above, that the benefit of that section is available to a landlord for keeping the vehicle. The vehicles in question are in the possession of the landlord. The ownership of the vehicle need not come in the way of asking for portion in question for his own use under section 10(3) (a)(ii) of the Act. Hence, the prayer for keeping the car and the motor cycle in the premises in question can be sustained even assuming that the ownership of the vehicles is not in the name of the landlord. 5. As regards the second contention put fourth by Mr.S.Sampathkumar, learned counsel for the tenant regarding the building in question being "adapted for such use", a single Judge of this Court in JAWANTHARAJ MEHTA v. RAMACHADRA CHETTY, (1965) 78 L.W. (S.R.C.) 65 C.R.P.Nos.1294 and 1893 of 1962 dated 4th August, 1965 had occasion to consider the word adapt occurring in this section. The learned Judge has observed as follows: "Adapt" ordinarily means make suitable. If the premises in question could be remodelled or converted or made fit for the purpose of keeping a vehicle, it can be said to be adapted for such use." This definition is wider in concept and definitely the present case can easily come under the definition of garage visualised under section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Act. In this case, the portion in dispute is a garage and it is fit to park a car and motor cycle, the decision cited above applied on all fours to the facts of the present case. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the two authorities below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Taking into consideration the fact that the tenant is running a business in the premises in question from the year 1970 onwards, the revision petitioner/tenant is granted three months time from this date to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in his occupation to the respondent/landlord.