Judgment :- The petitioner is the tenant. His eviction was ordered on his landlords’ application, R.C.O.No.650 of 1979 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai Town, under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for short, the Act, and affirmed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.35 of 1983. Hence, this revision. 2. The petitioner’s challenge is that because respondents 1 and 2 are carrying on business in a part of the same building, their remedy lies only in Section 10(3)(c), but not in section 10(3)(a)(iii) even assuming that the portion in the petitioner’s occupation is required only for the 1st respondent for the purpose of his separate business. 3. Necessary facts to be noticed’ are given below: Respondents 1 to 5 are the landlords of the petition-premises. In a part of the said premises which is adjacent to the petitioner’s occupation, respondents 1 and 2 carry on a joint business. Eviction is sought for by the respondents on the ground that the respondents bona fide require the portion in petitioner’s occupation for the 1st respondent to carry on his separate business. It is therefore contended that as the 1st respondent is already carrying on business in the neighbouring portion of the very same building, the respondents had to seek only additional accommodation, as visualised under section 10(3)(c), but not section 10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Act. 4. Such a contention is not tenable. For, according to section 10(3)(c) of the Act, a landlord who is occupying only part of the building, may apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation. Here, I have already referred to the fact that the landlords are respondents. All the five respondents do not require the portion in the occupation of the petitioner for their business; on the other hand, they require the portion in the occupation of the petitioner for the benefit of one among them, viz., the 1st respondent to carry on his separate business. Further, in the neighbouring portion, the business is not carried on by all the landlords; on the other hand, it is only by two among them, viz., respondents 1 and 2. Further, in the neighbouring portion, the business is not carried on by all the landlords; on the other hand, it is only by two among them, viz., respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, it is not possible to contend that the landlords are occupying a part of the building for non-residential purpose. Thus, section 10(3)(c) would not be attracted to the facts in this case. Further, the concept of additional accommodation clearly indicates that the requirement should be of the same person who is occupying the neighbouring portion of the same building. 1 have already referred to the fact that in the neighbouring portion, a joint business is being run by respondents 1 and 2. Then, the requirement of the 1st respondent alone in respect of the portion in the occupation of the petitioner will not be an additional requirement by respondents 1 and 2 who jointly carry on business in the neighbouring portion. Thus, in no view of the matter, can it be contended that the claim made in this petition would fall under section 10(3)(c). 4. Secondly, there is evidence that the 1st respondent is carrying on business in a rented premises and therefore, he requires the portion in petitioner’s occupation for his separate business. In such a case, the present application satisfies the requirements of section 10(3)(a)(iii). For, the 1st respondent is not occupying for the purpose of his business any nonresidential building in the city which is his own. On the other hand, in the instant case, he is individually carrying on business in a rented place. Then, as already pointed out, there is no difficulty in holding that the application can well be maintained under section 10(3)(a)(ii). It may be noticed incidentally that all the co-owners are entitled to seek eviction of their tenants for the benefit of providing accommodation for one among them. This is what the petitioners have claimed in R.C.O.P.No.650 of 1979. 5. No other contention is raised. However, I have to point out that both the Courts below have concurrently found that the requirement of the 1st respondent is but genuine. Indeed, it is not disputed by the petitioner/tenant that the 1st respondent is carrying on business in a rented place. Further, the tenant has not placed any material to doubt the bona fides of the respondents-landlords. However, I have to point out that both the Courts below have concurrently found that the requirement of the 1st respondent is but genuine. Indeed, it is not disputed by the petitioner/tenant that the 1st respondent is carrying on business in a rented place. Further, the tenant has not placed any material to doubt the bona fides of the respondents-landlords. Thus, the order or eviction passed by the Courts below does not suffer from any infirmity, or illegality. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed, but without costs. Time to vacate 3 months.