Judgment :- 1. The tenant is the petitioner in this revision petition. The landlords petition for eviction under S. 10 (3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the landlord, who is an engineer and building contractor, wanted to start an independent business in Kumbakonam where the premises in dispute are situated, had been rejected by the Rent Controller, However, the order of the Rent Controller has been reversed by the appellate authority and the tenant has now filed this revision petition. 2. Admittedly, there was a partition between the present landlord and his father on 14th December, 1970 at which three properties at Kumbakonam have been given to his share. Out of these three properties, the evidence disclosed that one non-residential property was sold in the year 1978., One other property, which is situate at No. 6, Sowrashtra Big Street, Kumbakonam according to the landlord, is a residential building. The disputed premises is the third property. 3. In his petition, the landlord has alleged that he was carrying on business under the name and style of Sri Kanth Construction, Madras. He claimed that he was registered with the Public Works Department and that he wanted to open bis office in Kumbakonam in the suit premises and conduct his engineering and consulting business therein. Claiming that he has no other building for non-residential use at Kumbakonam the landlord prayed for the eviction of the tenant. 4. The tenant disputed the bona fides of the claim made by the landlord. According to him the landlords father had been increasing the rent from time to time and even after the partition, the rent was increased on 19th April, 1976 to Rs. 275 and then to Rs. 350 per month on 1st April, 1980. The petition for eviction was made on 6th September, 1980, that is, after about five months from the last increase in rent. The tenants positive case is that the petition is only a device to enable the landlord to get the premises in order to sell it. The tenant has taken the stand that the landlord wanted to sell the properly to the tenant himself, but the tenant was not willing to purchase the property at the fabulous price demanded and, therefore, the proceeding for eviction has been started. 5. The tenant has taken the stand that the landlord wanted to sell the properly to the tenant himself, but the tenant was not willing to purchase the property at the fabulous price demanded and, therefore, the proceeding for eviction has been started. 5. Apart from the landlord himself, the landlord examined bis father and some documents were filed to show that the landlord was carrying on business under the name and style of Sri Kanth Constructions at Madras. It was stated before the Rent Controller by the landlord that his address was No. 6, Sowrashtra Big Street, Kumbakonam. Obviously, this was stated to show that the landlord was a resident of Kumbakonam. However, the Rent Controller found that in the petition the address given was No. 6, Vidhyodaya First Cross Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17, where admittedly the landlord is staying with his father-in-law. The Rent Controller declined to accept the sole testimony of the landlord in the absence of any other evidence that he wanted to start a business at Kumbakonam. In order to arrive at this finding, the Rent Controller took into consideration the fact that the landlord had never visited the suit building, that he did not know about the present condition of the building and how it was roofed and further he did not even know whether the condition of the building will suit the new business intended to be started by him at that place. He had admitted that he had not visited the building and be knew only the measurement of the building. The Rent Controller also found that the landlord did not even state in his evidence that the building in question was more suitable for starting his business. In addition to this, the Kent Controller took into account the fact that the landlord was unable to say as to the person to whom the other building had been sold and when it was sold The Rent Controller therefore, found some force in the contention of the tenant that the landlord and his father wanted the tenant to purchase the building at the price quoted by them and he having declined to purchase at the price quoted, the petition was filed as a device to evict him. Accordingly, the petition was rejected. 6. The Appellate Authority however reversed this finding. Accordingly, the petition was rejected. 6. The Appellate Authority however reversed this finding. It observed that the landlord being an Engineer and building contractor, he was quite competent to look into the plans and decide whether the building would be suitable for the purpose or not. Referring to the properties which fell to the share of the landlord and taking into accoune the fact that one non-residential premises were sold and the other residential premises were in the occupation of the landlord, the appellate authority took on record the sale deed of the date 19th December, 1978 executed in favour of one S. Viswanathajn and Mohan. On this basis he held that the nonresidential premises had been sold away in 1978 and it was, therefore, clear that there was no other non-residential premises in the possession of the landlord. It accepted the declaration of the landlord that he intended starting his business as a consulting engineer. The Appellate Authority also recorded a finding on the question of hardship and held that the tenant had failed to prove grave and irreparable loss if she was evicted from the premises. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. This order is now challenged by the tenant. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant has contended that the Rent Controller has observed that the landlord has another non-residential building at Kutnbakonam. On this statement alone, according to the learned counsel the claim under S. 10(3)(a) (iii) of the Act had to be negatived. It was also argued that the appellate authority should not have reversed the finding on the question of bona fides and lastly it was argued that since the landlord was not carrying on any business in Kutnbakonam, he could not claim any premises at Kumbakonam for nonresidential premises under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It was also faintly argued that there is nothing to show that the business “Sri Kanth Construction” belonged to the landlord. 8. Now so far as the alleged admission of the landlord that he had non-residential pre mises in Kumbakonam is concerned, the evidence of the landlord does not seem to bear out any such admission. It was also faintly argued that there is nothing to show that the business “Sri Kanth Construction” belonged to the landlord. 8. Now so far as the alleged admission of the landlord that he had non-residential pre mises in Kumbakonam is concerned, the evidence of the landlord does not seem to bear out any such admission. Similarly, the argument that the Sri Kanth Construction, is not proved to be the business of the landlord also does not seem to have much substance because the position that Sri Kanth Construction was the business of the landlord does not seem to have been seriously challenged in the counter-affidavit. There is, however, much substance in the contention that the Appellate Authority should not have disturbed the finding on the question of bona fides. A bare reading of the evidence of the landlord shows that he has hardly any knowledge of the premises in respect of which he has made his petition for eviction. The landlord is an Engineer and contractor and he is stated to be about 35 years of age He has received this property at a partition in the year 1970. The evidence shows that he really knows nothing about the property which has fallen to his share. The question as to whether the partition was acted upon or not, is not very material for the purpose of this petition. But the evidence of the landlord gives a clear impression that he is merely a nominee of his father in so far as present proceedings are concerned. He has not seen the premises in question. He does not even seem to have applied his mind whether these premises will suit him for the proposed business which he intends to start. He does not know to whom his other property was sold and when it was sold. The fact that in the appeal proceedings the sale deed was admitted as an additional evidence does not affect the inherent infinity in his evidence that he bad no knowledge about the transaction relating to his own property. When it was argued before the Appellate Authority that the landlord has not even seen the premises to decide about its suitability for his business, the Appellate Authority has observed that the landlord was an Engineer and it was enough if he looked at the plans of the premises. When it was argued before the Appellate Authority that the landlord has not even seen the premises to decide about its suitability for his business, the Appellate Authority has observed that the landlord was an Engineer and it was enough if he looked at the plans of the premises. The suitability of the premises for a particular purpose cannot be decided only on the basis of a plan. The actual condition of the building is also relevant when a claim is made that particular premises are required for a particular purpose. Wherever need in respect of any premises is to be made out, the Court must be satisfied that such a need is a genuine need and it is only then that the Claim for eviction can be said to be a bona fide claim. When the landlord has not even seen the building and has no knowledge about its condition, it is difficult to accept his claim that ho needs it for a particular purpose. The circumstances of this case clearly indicate that the landlord was bound to explain as to why he found it necessary to sell away the property in 1978 just a couple of years before he filed this petition for eviction. He had already increased the rent in respect of this premises five months before he filed the petition. He does not even disclose the names of the persons, who, according to him intended to give him the contract at Kumbakonam. Several material circumstances which would have gone to establish the bona fide nature of the claim of the landlord are lacking in this case. The evidence of the landlord clearly leaves one with the impression that the petition for eviction is nothing but a device to get the tenant evicted from the premises and to sell away the premises. The Appellate Authority, in my view, was clearly in error when it reversed the well considered finding of the Rent Controller. In the view which I have taken, it is not necessary to consider the argument of the learned counsel for the tenant that, since the landlord did not have any subsisting business at Kumbakonam, he was not entitled to evict the tenant from the non-residential premises. Apparently this contention appears to be contrary to the decision in Anandhayee Ammal v. S.M. Khaja & Co. Apparently this contention appears to be contrary to the decision in Anandhayee Ammal v. S.M. Khaja & Co. 1 But as pointed out already, it is not necessary to discuss this aspect of the argument. 9. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller is restored. The landlord shall pay the costs of this revision petition. Costs. Rs. 250.