ORDER S. Natarajan, J. 1. This revision has been preferred against the order of the appellate authority, viz, IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in R.C.A. No.585 of 1983 on the file of his Court. 2. The first revision petitioner is the father and revision petitioners 2 and 3 are his sons. They jointly purchased a house bearing door No. 24, Sundaram Pillai Street, Purasawalkam, Madras-7. The respondents, who are tenants, were already in occupation of two portions of the ground-floor in the rear side of the house with independent access to the public road from the rear side. After purchasing the house, the three petitioners entered into an oral partition and allocated different portions of the house to each one of them. Under the said family arrangement and partition, the portion in the occupation of the respondents was allotted to the share of the third petitioner. After attornment of tenancy, the respondents have been paying a monthly rent of Rs. 60 and Rs. 90 respectively to the third petitioner and obtaining receipts from him. The tenants have alleged in the reply notices that in spite of their paying rent of Rs. 60 and Rs. 90 respectively per month, the third petitioner was issuing receipts only for Rs. 25 and Rs. 50 respectively. We are not very much concerned with this aspect of the matter, for, it has no relevance to the controversy on hand. 3. The third petitioner, issued notices on 3.8.1981 to respondents 1 and 2 stating that is he was going to get married, he wants to set up a separate residence for himself and his wife in the portions in their occupation and, as such he was terminating the tenancy and calling upon them to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the respective portions on or before 1.9.1981. As the respondents sent replies refusing to vacate the premises, the third petitioner filed H.R.C. No. 5854 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, for an order of Court for evicting the tenants. The petition was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 4. The respondents contended that the requirement of the third petitioner was not bona fide and that the petition had been filed with an oblique motive,. The petition was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 4. The respondents contended that the requirement of the third petitioner was not bona fide and that the petition had been filed with an oblique motive,. viz., to get them evicted and then let out the premises to new tenants at higher rates of rent. They also took up a plea that in any event the petition should have been filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and not under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. Such a plea was raised on the basis that all the three petitioners constituted the owners of the house and that as joint owners, they can only ask for additional space for more convenient enjoyment of the house by them. 5. The Rent Controller sustained the case of the petitioners and rejected the defence -and ordered eviction. Against that order, the tenants preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority has sustained their objection and held that the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act was not maintainable and consequently he has allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction. It is against that order the landlords have preferred this revision. 6. Mr.Himmatmal Mardia, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, argued that the appellate authority has committed a grave error in holding that the petition for eviction ought to have been filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and not under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. On the other hand, Mr. V.R. GopaIan, Learned Counsel for the respondents, advanced arguments to contend that the order of the appellate authority is fully sustainable. 7. It is not in dispute that the entire house was originally purchased by all the three petitioners. On the other hand, Mr. V.R. GopaIan, Learned Counsel for the respondents, advanced arguments to contend that the order of the appellate authority is fully sustainable. 7. It is not in dispute that the entire house was originally purchased by all the three petitioners. They would, however, say that subsequently there was an oral partition and in the said partition, the portions in the occupation of the respondents herein were allotted to the third petitioner and that the respondents had accepted the third petitioner as third landlord and attorned the tenancy in his favour and had been paying rents to him If such is the position, then it follows that the third petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the respondents on the ground that he requires the portions for the own occupation and that he is not in possession of any other house of his own. What is, however, put against the third petitioner is that he has not produced any partition deed or informed the tenants of the partition arrangement and in such circumstances, he is precluded from contending that he is the landlord in respect of the portions leased out to them and that he requires the premises for his own occupation. This contention cannot be sustained because in the notices issued by the third petitioner, which have been marked as Exs. P1 and P2, it has been clearly stated as follows: You are a tenant under my client in respect of 3 rooms, one hall and a kitchen on a monthly rent of Rs. 60 at the back portion of the premises No. 24, Sundaram Pillai Street, Purasawalkam, Madras-7. The other notice Ex. P2 is also couched in the same language except for this difference that instead of 3 rooms there is mention of 2 rooms alone. The rent amount also is different viz., Rs. 90 instead of Rs. 60. In reply to these notices, the respondents have sent Exs. P3 and P4. Therein, it is stated as follows: My client admits that he is a tenant of a portion in premises No. 24, Sundaram Pillai Street, Purasawalkam, Madras-7. Though the monthly rent is Rs. 60 your client has been issuing receipts only for Rs. 25 for obvious reasons. In the same way, the second respondent has also stated in Ex. Therein, it is stated as follows: My client admits that he is a tenant of a portion in premises No. 24, Sundaram Pillai Street, Purasawalkam, Madras-7. Though the monthly rent is Rs. 60 your client has been issuing receipts only for Rs. 25 for obvious reasons. In the same way, the second respondent has also stated in Ex. P4 that he admits that he is a tenant of the portion in question and that he has been paying the monthly rent of Rs. 90 but even so the third petitioner has been issuing receipts only for Rs. 50, It is significant to note that the notices had not been issued by all the three petitioners or even by the first petitioner, viz., the father, but only by the third petitioner. It may thus be seen that both the respondents have unambiguously admitted the third petitioner to be their landlord and had even gone to the extent of accusing him of issuing receipts for lesser amounts than the amounts which were paid by them. Having taken such a stand, it is not now open to the respondents to say that the third petitioner is not their landlord, but on the other hand, all three petitioners are their landlords and as such a petition for eviction against them can be filed only under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and not under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents argued that if the third petitioner is alone the landlord of the respondents, there was no need for petitioners 1 and 2 also being impleaded as parties to the petition. He, therefore, submitted that the inclusion of petitioners 1 and 2 also as parties to the proceedings lends support to the case of the respondents that all the three petitioners jointly own the premises and as such one of them cannot seek eviction of the tenants on the basis of a' petition under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. This argument overlooks the statement of the third petitioner in lucid terms In the petition explaining the reason for the impleadment of petitioners 1 and 2 as parties to the action. The relevant portion reads as follows: Thus the 3rd petitioner is the landlord of the respondents above named. This argument overlooks the statement of the third petitioner in lucid terms In the petition explaining the reason for the impleadment of petitioners 1 and 2 as parties to the action. The relevant portion reads as follows: Thus the 3rd petitioner is the landlord of the respondents above named. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are impleaded by was of abundant caution to meet the objection by the respondents that the property was originally purchased in the joint names of the petitioners. All the petitioners state that the respondents are tenants under the 3rd petitioner and they have no objection in the 3rd petitioner asking for the portions under the occupation of the respondents for his own self occupation. The above statement, far from lending support to the case of the respondents, clearly reinforces the case of the third petitioner. 9. In such circumstances, the appellate authority was wholly in error in coming to the conclusion that the petition for eviction ought to have been filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and not under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The revision, therefore, deserves to succeed and accordingly stands allowed. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents stated that the respondents and the petitioners have come to an agreement and in terms thereof, the respondents will be in occupation of the premises till 14.4.198fi and they will deliver vacant possession of the premises to the third petitioner on 15.4.1986. This representation is recorded. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order of the Rent Controller is restored. The respondents are given time till 15.4.1986 to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the third petition. No cost