Judgment :- These revisions are identical and have been filed by the tenants who are occupying different portions of a building as tenants. The facts of the case are somewhat unusal and it is with reference to the peculiar features of the case the petitioners seek to assail the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 2. Premises bearing door No.16, Perumal Mudali Street, Madras 600001 was purchased by the respondent Jayanthilal and his wife’s paternal uncle Babulal under two sale deeds dated 29th April, 1981 from the previous owner of the house. As per the recitals in the sale deeds, the northern portion was purchased by Babulal and the southern portion was purchased by the respondent herein. In all, there were six tenants in occupation of different portions of the building which is a storeyed structure. After the building was purchased by the respondent and Babulal, the previous owner directed the tenants to attorn their tenancy in favour of the purchasers. Accordingly three tenants including the revision petitioners in the two revisions attorned their tenancy in favour of the respondent while the other three tenants attorned their tenancy in favour of the other purchaser Babulal. In terms of the attornment, the tenants were paying rents to the respective purchasers. The respondent herein issued notices to the revision petitioners terminating the tenancy in their favour and called upon them to surrender vacant possession of the respective portions occupied by them. The respondent alleged in the notice that he was living in a rented premises and hence he was in need of the portion used by the petitioners for his own occupation. The petitioners sent reply notices and refused to vacate the portions occupied by them. Therafter respondent filed petitions for eviction under S.10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 19 73. 3. Before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, two defences were taken. The first was that the requirement of the leased portions was not bona fide. The second defence was that since the building had been purchased by two different persons the petition for eviction ought to have been filed by both of them jointly, because a portion of the leased premises appeared to fall in the portion purchased by Babulal as well. The second defence was that since the building had been purchased by two different persons the petition for eviction ought to have been filed by both of them jointly, because a portion of the leased premises appeared to fall in the portion purchased by Babulal as well. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have rejected both the defences and ordered eviction. It is against the concurrent findings of those two authorities, the two tenants have filed these revision petitions. 4. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that in view of the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority about the respondent’s bona fide requirement of the leased portions for their own occupation, it will not be open to him to assail the concurrent findings on a question of tact rendered by the authorities below. He therefore, confined his arguments only to the legal question, viz., whether the respondent who had purchased only a portion of the house can file a petition under S.10 (3) (i) of the Act without the purchaser of the other half portion also joining him in filing the petition. 5. Mr T.R.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that since the two purchasers are not shown to have effected a partition of the house between them, they constitute joint owners ,of the building and as such, the petitions for eviction ought to have been filed by both of them and it is not open to the owner of a moiety of a building to file a petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for owner’s occupation. In support of his argument, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision rendered" by me in A.Alagiyanathan v. Swaminatha Pillai, (1980) 93 L.W.580. In that case a residential building was owned by one Rayappa Pillai and after his death his two nephews succeeded to that property. There was a tenant in the building. After the death of Rayappa Pillai, the two brothers were collecting the rents in equal halves. In that state of affairs one of the nephews filed a petition for eviction on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and further more he bona fide required the building for his son’s occupation. After the death of Rayappa Pillai, the two brothers were collecting the rents in equal halves. In that state of affairs one of the nephews filed a petition for eviction on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and further more he bona fide required the building for his son’s occupation. It was with reference to that situation this Court held that the petition for eviction ought to have been filed jointly by both the owners as otherwise an anomalous position may emerge by the two co-owners simultaneously seeking eviction of the tenant on different grounds. If we look into the facts of this case we find that there is no comparison at all between the situation existing in this case and the situation which was found to exist in the reported case. It is true that in this case the respondent and his wife’s uncle have purchased two different portions of the house, namely the southern half and the northern half, and that they have not effected a partition between themselves. Even so it has to be pointed out that the two purchasers have apportioned between themselves the six tenants in ,the house, each purchaser having three tenants occupying different specified portion of the house. The tenants too have recognised the respondent and his wife’s uncle as their respective landlords and have been paying rents to them. This apart, Babulal has also given a letter of authorisation to the respondent authorising him to conduct cases on his behalf and to give evidence in the proceedings instituted in the court. In view of this authorisation letter there is no scope for Babulal instituting independent proceedings against the tenancies allotted to the respondent’ for recovery of possession. In fact it has been elicited in evidence that Babulal has independently initiated proceedings against the tenants who have attorned to him for recovery of possession of the portions allotted to him. In such circumstances, there is no scope for contending that both the purchasers constitute joint landlords for all the tenants and as such both of them should have jointly filed a petition for eviction. Likewise there is also no room for contending that it cannot be said with precision and definiteness as to which portion belongs to which. of the purchasers and as to which tenant can be evicted by which of the purchasers. Likewise there is also no room for contending that it cannot be said with precision and definiteness as to which portion belongs to which. of the purchasers and as to which tenant can be evicted by which of the purchasers. Consequently, the contention of the petitioners that the petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable and that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have committed an error of law in entertaining the petitions and in ordering eviction against them has no merit in it. The revision petitions, therefore, fail and they will stand dismissed with costs. The petitioners are given time till 30th Dune, 1986 to vacate and hand over vacant "possession of the portions in their respective occupation.