Judgment :- This revision under S.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by a landlady against a reversing judgment rendered by the appellate authority dismissing her petition filed under S.10(3) (c) of the Act- seeking eviction of the tenant. 2. The premises in question was purchased by the petitioner- landlady in the year 1980. The respondent-tenant attorned the tenancy to her and also gave an undertaking that he would vacate the premises as soon as he secured alternate accommodation. As he failed to vacate the premises, the petitioner filed a petition under S.10(3) (c) of the Act seeking his eviction on the ground that she required the leased portion by way of additional accommodation. While putting forth such a claim she averred that her mother-in-law, and four grandchildren of her mother-in-law born to a deceased daughter, would also be moving into her house and as such, she badly required the leased portion by way of additional accommodation. 3. The Rent Controller sustained the case of the petitioner and ordered eviction; but on appeal by the respondent herein the appellate authority has gone off at a tangent and held that the petitioner’s mother-in-law and her daughter’s children cannot be considered members of the family of the petitioner and hence, eviction cannot be ordered for providing additional accommodation for them. It is the correctness of this order, that is challenged by the petitioner. 4. The admitted facts are that the petitioner’s family consists of seven members. The portion of the ground floor which is occupied by the petitioner consists of only two rooms. On these admitted facts, themselves, the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the respondent for securing additional accommodation. But in order to fortify her case, she has stated that besides the seven members of her own family, five more members were to come. viz. her mother-in-law and four grand children and, as such, the securing of additional accommodation was imperative. Without properly understanding the scope of S.10 (3) (a) (i) and S.10 (3) (c) of the Act, the appellate authority has held that additional accommodation can be sought for only if accommodation is to be provided for the members of the family of the landlady. Without properly understanding the scope of S.10 (3) (a) (i) and S.10 (3) (c) of the Act, the appellate authority has held that additional accommodation can be sought for only if accommodation is to be provided for the members of the family of the landlady. But since in this case, the additional accommodation is sought on behalf of the petitioner’s mother-in-law and her grand- children they will not constitute members of the family and as such, an order of eviction cannot be passed against the tenant. 5. The appellate authority has committed a gross error in failing to note that while S.10 (3) (a) (i) will govern a case where an entire building is under the occupation of a tenant and the recovery of the possession of that building is sought for in order to provide accommodation for the landlord himself or for any members of his family, S.10 (3) (c) will govern a case where a portion of the residential or non-residential premises is under the occupation of the landlord and another portion is under the occupation of the tenant and the landlord finds that the portion under his occupation is not sufficient for him and that he is constrained to seek eviction of the tenant for securing additional accommodation. In cases of this type, it is not necessary that eviction should be sought for to provide accommodation for another member of the family. Take for example a case where a landlord and’ his wife are living in a portion of the house along with their minor children. When the children grew up or when one of the sons gets married, then it goes without saying that the landlord will be entitled to ask for additional accommodation and for that purpose he can seek for eviction of the tenant from the portion occupied by him. Therefore, irrespective of the question whether the petitioner’s mother-in- law and her grand children need be provided accommodation by the petitioner or not, the petitioner and the members of her own family will be justified in asking for additional accommodation since they are seven in number and they are in occupation of only two rooms. Since the appellate authority has failed to understand the scope of S.10 (3) (c), his entire reasoning and conclusion are vitiated. On that short ground, the revision deserves to succeed. 6. Since the appellate authority has failed to understand the scope of S.10 (3) (c), his entire reasoning and conclusion are vitiated. On that short ground, the revision deserves to succeed. 6. In the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner offered alternate accommodation, viz., the first floor of the house, but the respondent refused to occupy it. The respondent’s counsel would say that the rent for that portion is Rs.250 per month as against the rent of Rs.100 which he is now paying for the ground floor portion and hence the respondent cannot be compelled to occupy the first floor. No discussion on this aspect of the matter is called for because on merits, the petitioner’s case is found to be fully sustainable. 7. Another contention was put forth by the petitioner’s counsel viz., that the respondent has another house", allotted at Adambakkam, but instead of occupying that house, he is retaining the petition premises and refusing to surrender possession. Learned counsel for the respondent would say that there is no proof that the respondent has been allotted a building in Adambakkam. Even this contention does not warrant examination, because the petitioner and the members of her. family, are now occupying only two rooms in the house and they are certainly entitled to seek eviction of the tenant for securing additional accommodation and there can be no dispute about this position either in law or on facts. 8. The revision petition will stand allowed and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller will stand restored. The respondent is given time till 31st March, 1986 to vacate the premises. The petitioner will be entitled to her costs throughout.